They’re both part of the nanobility.
They’re both part of the nanobility.
Anyone who reviews for Elsevier is part of the problem.
Waifus don’t count to normies.
The article doesn’t say what type of testing they did. Clearly it wasn’t enough.
Wait, is this the same thing we were ridiculing over on 196? https://lemmy.world/post/18120973
In this image you could just put cardboard over all the ads to have an ad-free experience.
I would abandon the friendship as a pointless endeavor
You’re in luck, you can subscribe to an AI friend instead. /s
Not nearly enough. CrowdStrike should give a pizza party.
If they gave two captchas, one which they knew the answer and one which they didn’t, they could use the second for training. (Even if you’re paying someone, you want to do that sort of thing when crowdsourcing data, because you never know if the paid person is just screwing around.)
If it’s something like taking apart hardware, videos are great because there are a lot of little details that it’s hard to capture in even a picture.
To do a super upvote you can give Lemmy gold.
“Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat a machine learning algorithm.” - traditional Native American saying.
some people still recommend using a VPN and IP address from a country where YouTube ads are prohibited, such as Myanmar, Albania, or Uzbekistan.
Wait, you can just prohibit YouTube ads at a national level? That’s somehow awesome and terrifying at the same time.
When you defend, print out your slides; at least enough for your committee and you. Then if all else fails, you can present off the paper copies. (also, it gives the committee members somewhere to write notes and to easily look back to previous slides.)
Microsoft is offering wallpapers, ask Google what it’s offering before you make the decision.
No US companies thought that Americans would ever understand or get into this weird Japanese stuff
I miss the subtitled “translator notes” about cultural things. US companies just change the meaning of things if there’s no easy equivalent.
Statement 1: “You can save up to 77% if you buy now”
Statement 2: “you can never save by buying something. I save if I don’t buy”
Statement 2a: “save 77% compared to buying at full price”
Statement 2b: “Save 77% compared to not buying the item”
Statement 2’s first use of “save” suggests that of Statement 2a, and Statement 2’s second use of “save” suggests that of Statement 2b. Statement 1’s use of the word “save” corresponds to that of Statement 2a. I don’t think we disagree on the semantics, though we may be phrasing things a little differently.
You’re playing a semantics game though. The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing. Society has decided that “save 77%” is a valid shortening of “save 77% compared to buying at full price” because that is the most logical comparison to make. Yes. “Save 77% compared to not buying the item” makes no sense, but that is clearly not what is being implied here. Implying and inferring things is a normal part of human communication, and refusing to accept the implications doesn’t make you clever.
I agree that the original poster was playing a semantics game; indeed, I interpret Statement 2 as follows.
Interpetation A: Statement 2 is a witticism that plays off the contextual use of the word “save”. Specifically, the humorous force of Statement 2 is in its reinterpretation of the word “save”. Statement 2 is saying: “Statement 1’s use of the word ‘save’ is that of Statement 2a, but I choose to reinterpret Statement 1’s use of the word ‘save’ to that of Statement 2b!”
Comment 1: The reinterpretation performed by Statement 2 is mildly subversive in that it rejects Statement 1’s interpretation of ‘save’.
Comment 2: The reinterpretation performed by Statement 2 is mildly empowering in that it performs a reinterpetation of ‘save’ to the benefit of the writer.
You say “refusing to accept the implications doesn’t make you clever”. There’s a bit of an aesthetic judgment to the “doesn’t make you clever” part which we can agree to disagree on. But Interpretation A does not depend on “refusing to accept the implications”. Rather, it accepts the implication, and subverts it to provide the effects described in Comments 1 and 2.
Note: The original post that started this discussion seems to be unavailable apparently because the original poster (I am not the original poster) deleted it. I believe we are just discussing among ourselves.
Ok you’re right. This is worse than NFTs.
The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing.
Sure, but that’s the assumption created by the advertisement. If you’re debating buying something, and the ad says “You can save up to 77% if you buy now” then suddenly the presupposition is (sneakily!) introduced that you are going to buy it. In that case, identifying and rejecting the presupposition is the smarter thing to do.
I’ll just be happy when we never have to see that guy’s face in the news again.