BillyClark

I seem to recall this was from a few years ago. At this point, I wouldn't hold it against her if she's made more money. Big name politicians can make extra money through things like speaking fees and book deals. Honestly, I'd be surprised if any famous politicians aren't taking speaking fees. Plus, her salary is $174,000/year according to Wikipedia.

I like to at least pretend in my head that I'd be an ethical politician were I ever elected (a job I would never actually want), and if somebody offered me a speaking fee that was sort of the average amount a politician might get, I think I'd still be able to convince myself it wasn't a bribe.

Strangely, I guess, if I try to imagine myself having one billion dollars, it's just an amount of money that the only way I'd even make a dent in it is if I either was specifically making bad purchases or if I had lost my mind. (For example, just gambling it all away.)

Even if you simply threw it in a normal index fund that isn't focused on dividends, but growth, you might still make 1%, or 10 million a year in dividends. So just the dividends you accidentally make would let you live a very luxurious lifestyle.

I could imagine having one billion dollars if it was just the worth of my private company that I didn't want to split up or something like that, but otherwise, it's really just too much money. I'd be donating to charities just to keep my net worth at a level that I could look myself in the mirror and not feel like a villain, and so I'd actually be in favor of things like wealth taxes. It would just make my life easier.

I think people who imagine themselves as billionaires and are still stingy with money are either not accurately imagining that amount of money, or they're too stupid to have any amount of money, or they're villains, just like every billionaire today is a villain.

Sure. I used different words in different combinations to respond to different posts or comments.

On Amazon, they have book summaries, previews, and reviews. If you tell an author that you saw they have books on Amazon, and you ask them to go through the trouble of explaining them for you specifically when that information is already easily available on the very site you got that information from, you're like the king of lazy entitled assholes.

If you can't even be bothered to read the information off of Amazon, chances are, you're not a big reader in the first place. There's no point to taking you seriously.

It would probably be better if Shatner had simply ignored this person, but I'm not going to take a person to task when they were just being an asshole to a person who was previously acting like an asshole towards them.

That makes me think. Has there ever been a person who actually wrote a lot of fiction, like a novelist or something, who read the Bible and didn't see signs that the authors were mostly either making shit up or retelling a story that they heard? Like, if it really was the inspired word of God, like God is just whispering in people's ears, you'd think an author would sense something unusual or different about the quality of the writing, but it's really no different from any old shit that some human might write.

So, it may in fact be that the only people who can believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible are people who cannot write well. Once you learn to write well, you lose the ability to believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Well, that ignores the real problem of compartmentalization, but it's an interesting idea, I think.

The author of that review also doesn't know how to use punctuation.

"They gave inaccurate information from a Christian perspective," is most straightforwardly read as if the person giving the information is Christian.

Whereas, "They gave inaccurate information, from a Christian perspective," is what they meant, that the receiver of the information is Christian.

It's possible to do a good job even at the parts of the job you don't like as much.

That's interesting, and I think those results show that those in the study were not following good practices in the first place. Particularly how they said the quality went down.

The quality obviously doesn't have to go down, and I mean from the first person in the chain. They don't have to send out code reviews with more bugs in them than human generated code. They just need to thoroughly review and understand the code that is generated. The experiment I'd like to see is where they ensure that the quality doesn't go down, and compare those development times.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I suspect that the Democrats intentionally pressured to delay those prosecutions with the following idea, "If we wait until the last minute, then these prosecutions of crimes, which we 100% know Trump is guilty of, will torpedo Trump's presidential chances, and the Republicans won't have any time to boost a different candidate."

I think they didn't expect that the most slam-dunk case, the classified files case, would be pulled by one of the most outlandishly corrupt pro-Trump judges we've ever seen, Aileen Cannon.

Boneitis.

#4 is wrong and fucking gross. It looks like they've picked up the paper and folded it up, but you can see from #3 that the middle part is down in the water where it's supposed to be wet.

So according to that instruction, I'm either secretly tearing off that part without being instructed to, or I am pulling that pissy shitty part out of the water and folding it up while it drips all over the place. Disgusting!

What you're supposed to do is just flush and that part that's in the water yanks the paper off the seat without you having to touch anything. Admittedly, if the toilet seat has any "moisture" on it, then the paper can get stuck and might not go down.

I think you're asking the right questions, and I think that, since this is a factual question, it is best solved by experiment.

Like, even if I think it's faster, that might actually just be a quirk related to its novelty. Maybe it simply seems faster, or maybe it is faster, but only because it's somewhat fun that it's different, and eventually it would come back down to the speed of manual coding.

A carefully controlled experiment with many participants is certainly the best for figuring this out.

If you really want me to guess why it might be faster, I think it's the fact that you save time reading code and reading documentation, which takes quite a bit of time while coding. AI is able to recall this sort of data with incredible speed, at the cost of some weird hallucinations and other mistakes. It's just a guess, though.