Nah, 90% chance that they do something stupider.

Yeah, I get it. It is definitely dry and it is shampoo 😆

You are thinking of something else. Bar shampoo is intended to be used with water much like bar soap. Dry shampoo is just sprayed or rubbed into hair without any water.

I guess it depends how you look at it. From my point of view the speaker isn’t actually talking about themselves. That is the “royal” part. And I mean she does say “as if” to back up that yes, she is not actually including herself.

No, this is the right meaning royal we. If you say “we are going into battle” it is talking about the person being talked to not the person talking. So in this case “We don’t eat that” would be implying that the cat doesn’t eat that, not actually saying anything about the speaker even though “we” would imply they are included.

Gotta wish for a 64-bit genie.

Off topic. But I can’t help but rate the trash cans.

• 1995: Excellent can. Obviously not that many pixels to work with but it is clear, legible and clean.
• 1998: I mean its fine, but a bit of a downgrade. Why so much black? Especially that top rim that apparently was painted black. The shading on the arrows also just hurts legibility, why do 2D arrows have shading anyways?
• 2000: Nope. The only good thing about it is that it is throwing away Windows. The shading is to simple arrows are strange colours and lacks a sense of depth.
• 2001: I don’t love the theme but the execution is great. It looks clean shiny and bright. The only real weird thing is the bag inside, it is a bit strangely round despite seemingly not going over the edge.
• 2006: This is a nice refinement of the last one. Cleaner look, skip the bag, more realistic trash. This is the second best executed after 1995.
• 2015: This one is bland and lacks contrast and detail. The arrows are also oddly stubby for some reason. It’s not bad, but also not good.

I believe that OP’s point is that “artificial” and “natural” are about how the thing is made. However neither reject that it is actual intelligence. “Simulated” means that it is not that thing. It is like intelligence, and resembles it in some ways, but it isn’t intelligence.

I uh, wouldn’t recommend that with fire bars.

with no changes to the salary they received during the production stage

But this just isn’t how it works. These people aren’t paid minimum wage. This will definitely be played in salary negotiation as part of the compensation and will almost certainly result in less base salary.

So now the studio is shifting some risk onto the workers.

I don’t know if I really buy “not doing much of the work”. Middle management maybe but to own and run a company is serious work. Especially starting a company is huge risk. So if you take the risk you get a lot of the reward.

IMHO ways to help even this out are:

1. Higher taxes on the wealthy. Keep that progressive tax curve going (and not regressing). I think these people do deserve to be rewarded, but up to a point. Honestly I think the tax rate should approach 100% as you approach the very highest percentile of income.
2. Universal basic income. Make it so that people don’t need to work. They get to choose to work when the compensation is worth it to them. This makes explotation much harder and makes it much easier for people to negotiate fair compensation (whether that is salary, profit sharing, a mix or something else).

I would also like to see some way to change the natural goal of a company from “make as much money as possible” to “bring as much value to people as possible”, but I think these two things would be a good start.

I would be a bit careful with this.

1. It is incredibly hard to define each worker’s contribution to any particular profit.
2. It means that the worker’s compensation depends on the overall success of the product which may have little to do with their work (for example bad management tanking a project or it getting cancelled before release).
3. Accounting can move profits around in a lot of cases. Look at how every movie makes no money.

In many ways having it be a transaction (work x hours get paid x dollars) is nice. I means that the employee knows exactly what they are getting upfront.

Reminds me of this old ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLmIuW7yhBI

The biggest question is this a fork or a threek?

If the bottom can be seen at all that is completely unacceptable.

If a ceiling fan is on one of my boys will hide under chairs and couches and basically just skirt around from cover to cover. I think he thinks it is a bird.

https://mastodon.social/@picklemaddierix/100639571254871391

It’s been fine. But I’m a decently well off young white dude who has never had trouble with borders anywhere. But I will still avoid it as much as I can.

But your case is wrong anyways because i <= INT_MAX will always be true, by definition. By your argument < is actually better because it is consistent from < 0 to iterate 0 times to < INT_MAX to iterate the maximum number of times. INT_MAX + 1 is the problem, not < which is the standard to write for loops and the standard for a reason.

Technically if it doesn’t have a bathtub or shower it is called a powder room. But that phrase is rarely used. (Mostly because 90% of the time when we say bathroom we mean toilet.)