The fact that he didn’t do it by himself tells you he did not wear it with any previous partners who didn’t make him. So yes, that puts his likelihood of STD rather high.
You were 100% right to make him wear one.
toebert
- 0 Followers
- 0 Following
- 1 Posts
That’s madness. How would you know you have done something wrong every 8 seconds if you don’t hear a weird beep? You could cross some old lines on the road without knowing, or worse - obey the speed limit on the traffic signs instead of what Google thinks it is.
I’ll also say 5 but I have my gripes with it. Mainly with the “review from any other engineer” aspect that usually comes with it.. I have met so many engineers whose review seems to just depend on who created the MR, as opposed to what’s in it. When an MR with 500+ lines changed gets reviewed in about 10s after requesting it, it’s kinda obvious that the system is broken.
The people I’ve worked with who are good at their job and I’d probably be okay with them merging their changes without reviews would always ask for a review, even when it’s not mandatory or enforced. And their MR would already have comments by themselves around bits I might have a question around, and they’d even come with prompts of what they want input on. Whereas the people I wish wouldn’t even be allowed to approve anything would usually ask for an approval instead (even the wording seems telling). Sadly, often these 2 groups will have the same job title and HR will dictate that they should have the same permissions and say in things, which is what usually breaks the system IMO.
- The amount of people who seem to treat reviews as currency/favours and just rubber stamp each others MRs without looking..sigh.
AI is great, LLMs are a waste. This has been the case for years before LLMs.
LLMs which the current hype calls AI are the equivalent of a scammy car salesman. To your example of have AI teach you to code - AI is awful at coding. It produces code that is the average of a junior developer’s output. It will look awesome from the outside because it will often mostly work at first, but in reality it’s going to be an unmaintainable mess. An experienced engineer could use one and produce a good outcome, in some cases may be faster than without and in others slower - but the experienced engineer requirement is a must. What this means is your AI teacher by itself is a junior engineer, whose output wouldn’t be trusted by themselves. That’s the level you’ll reach and may even learn and pick up terrible habits that’ll set you back.
It will do all that and consume a ridiculous amount of resources for it compared to following a YouTube course.
I imagine a similar case is true for most industries, people who work in the industry see the absolute garbage coming out of it in large quantities and have to listen to people from the outside who don’t know what good looks like in that context keep saying “oh you are now redundant cuz look how good ai is”.
Meanwhile, it is trained on data stolen from the people who are now losing their jobs because the idiotic decision makers are on the side of believing how good the output looks like. AND there is more, it’s doing it wasting a massive amount of resources, which drives up the prices for everyone (think all electrical devices needing computers, electricity prices). But what what money are they using for it? Oh yes! The money generated out of thin air by the corporations generating this massive AI bubble, which is most likely going to end with a crash that will decimate the market (and therefore the investments and pensions of people). And if the past is any indication, the government will prop the companies up with tax money - so people will pay for it twice.
A lot of these cars get sold on an argument like “if you get hit by another SUV and you’re not in an SUV or something bigger yourself, you die”. Which seems more like a great reason to ban making them.
I wish cars like them would be taxed to hell..
Do these lawsuits backfire if the ones suing lose? Cuz this is very clearly not on valve to sort but the games. I’m guessing they are hoping to strike gold with 1 lawsuit as opposed to having to go after the game developers individually, who may just stop using their work in the future which valve can’t do.. because they don’t use their work already.
But is it just a case you made lawsuit you lost, oh well some lawyer fees and it’s over? Or do they have to pay valve for wasting their time and their legal expenses too?
I don’t follow your reasoning, you support the current laws enacted by the government in this area (age verification, proposing ban from social media) but you end your comment saying you disagree with the government nannying kids as they do a poor job of it. Those seem contradictory?
Also, you don’t need a VPN to get around the current set of age verification crap. All you need to do is to look at smaller providers, which the government ignored because it’s unfeasible to regulate them. Or providers from different countries who just straight up don’t care. It’s not even hard to find these, pretty much just page 2 of Google.
The point being, any of these laws are unenforceable in reality. Preventing access to porn is not feasible in today’s world. It was not feasible 30 years ago when the internet barely existed, except then yes it was magazines (and porn was still popular then because sex has always been popular in the history of humanity). In today’s world if it came down to it I imagine it’d be SD cards or usb sticks. You seem to imagine it like walking into a store, in reality it’d be the 1 kid who got his older brother to download him porn and then sells it in school to his classmates for a few quid.
These existed for pirated movies and games ages ago when access to them was harder. There is no need for this today because it’s easier to get it from the internet. If the government magically managed to change that (which is doubtful), these would just re-appear because there’d be money to make. Same story as drugs.
Regarding your last point, you phrased it like you were disagreeing with what I said, but basically just suggested the same but with concrete examples (re: better support for parents and the education system). I’m not sure what to make of that.
There is no way the kids who grew up with technology in their lives from the start won’t find ways to work around it, especially when pitted against the people coming up with these legislations who struggle to understand the basics of technology.
Even if kids were to be completely banned from the internet and it somehow magically was enforceable, they’d just end up buying physical porn.
If they actually wanted improvement, they’d fund support for parents and the educational system so kids grow up in environments that teach them good values and feel safe in. But instead, we get this meaningless duct tape that’ll still probably cost a fortune for us, and will be unenforceable for anything but the biggest porn providers/distributors.