One of the stills from one of the videos that the BBC showed identifying it as a Tomahawk showed it at a very un-cruise-missile way up, so it could just have malfunctioned during terminal guidance or been clipped but not destroyed by air defence, and then hit the wrong target. It could also just have been a governmenty-looking building close enough to an intended target that whoever was checking it didn’t notice it wasn’t the target. It’s a lot easier to get everything right when the whole mission is to hit one person with one missile when everyone’s got enough time to do their job perfectly and everything’s been rehearsed than when there are thousands of targets and people are doing things in a rush, especially if orders are coming from people who don’t care about international law.

There’s nothing inherent to small components to suggest that you have to review them. If they’re small, it’s easier to tell yourself that the LLM probably got them right and you’re justified in not checking.

Using an LLM to write tests and small components is still vibe coding.

If we go by George W Bush the French have no word for entrepreneur rules, then there’s no Dutch word for apartheid anymore since it was taken for English.

Cultural appropriation is something like McDonald’s advertising a new Indian burger and it’s just a beefburger with some chillies in it, i.e. someone’s attempting to gain from a bastardised caracature of the culture that wouldn’t be something someone from that culture would participate in. Right wing pundits intentionally misrepresented it as things like eating a traditional dish from another culture to make it sound stupid so people would dismiss it, and then people who’d only heard the misrepresentation but wanted to do the right thing or at least appear to be doing the right thing started acting like it was immoral to participate in any culture you weren’t born into.

Why would she have got her keyboard gunk bowl out her desk drawer before she was about to extract a serving of keyboard gunk?

The point of the bowl is that she’s got enough keyboard gunk to fill a bowl. There’s no bowl of food. It’s just a lot of keyboard gunk.

If all the profiles are garbage, then:

• it would be bad UX to start using one of the garbage profiles and declare that the monitor’s now working.
• it would be better UX to notice all the profiles have nonsensical values, fall back to a basic one all monitors typically support, and display an error message.

How do you propose you sanity check numbers beyond checking whether or not they’re within a sane range, i.e. a hardcoded limit? It’s not like you can trust a monitor that’s potentially feeding you bad values to limit the number of bad values it gives you.

Either you’d be accessing the internet to query which monitor parameters are sensible each time a monitor connects, or you’d be periodically updating a list of sensible monitor parameters which is exactly what this update was.