Honestly, I think most tech CEO decisions are being made with crackgpt.

The rust part, if done well, would be a good step.

Then again, coding in rust is pain, and given how young it is AI is unlikely to manage well with it, and there isn’t the technical ability in rust present to fix what breaks.

What a terrible day to be literate.

Interesting - time to go poke one of the politics lecturers and see what ramifications they had.

To the average person on the street their lack would likely mean little, though I’ll miss the interesting coin designs of the pound.

I hear this point a fair bit, could you elaborate more on these special treatments (I know about opting out of the euro, but that’s about it).

LaTeX supremacy has entered that chat

[✓] Realised I understand nothing

[✓] Time for this planet to die

Definitely checks out.

Yep, because it was never about protecting the children ;)

I COMPLETELY AGREE - THIS ALL MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

Imgur blocking is a bit of a pain - half the mods in steam are missing images in their description.

The online safety act also means we get to submit ID to view anything construed as “adult”. Very “av you got a loiscencse for that” these days without a VPN.

How GLaDOS would hurt us now: Portal 2 turns 15 next year.

You know, there’s a fun observation to be made here: for every perversion you ban, the more niche ones move further up the view list. In essence, short of a complete porn ban (which is their final goal), they’re likely to make the problem worse.

In terms of boys learning violence from this kind of porn - surely the online safety act is doing that right? Of course not; that act has failed gloriously and this proposed change evidences that.

The real solution they should be considering is strong messages about “safe, sane, consensual”. Stick it up on posters, make it a mandatory banner on porn sites (who would complain, really), even take that shit into schools (it’s good practice even for vanilla). The real issue isn’t the acts themselves, it’s the way we talk about them, or more don’t!

Erm…

I think there are errors on both parts here…

1.9/170 is about 1.1176%. 4 decimal places is still an unacceptable level of rounding here, but it’sa damn sight better than 0/1 decimal place. Both of you were off on this.

It is definitely right to split rape and sexual assault, they’re very different crimes - combining them is double counting which is a poor faith tactic used to inflate numbers.

1.1176% per year DEFINITELY does not translate directly to that for a lifetime. To put it into context, if you have a 1% chance of being shot each day (assuming BINS) you have a [(0.99)^365]*100% (or 2.6%) of not being shot at all that year - note binomial is not appropriate for rape odds calculations but it’s a nice example of how low odds per year DO NOT translate to low odds per lifetime.

Self report is absolute garbage - it’s the worst form of stat gathering and often leads to socially advantageous answers being given. Using self-report stats as a keystone to an argument is dangerous at best.

The “known rapist” is a tricky one, as it depends how you define rape. Sex under the influence of alcohol you later regret - tricky to place in the at home (you knew them enough to go home with) vs stranger (did you really know them). While it’s nice to give clear cut numbers, this isn’t a clear cut scenario.

/Statsrant

Seems to me you both care about this topic - sounds to me like you should both go data hunting and explore the topic together. Two opposing perspectives makes a great paper, and you generally learn more!

My two cents - being alone with someone is always risky. Trying to assign which is riskier (men or women) is foolish, it creates the dynamic of “men vs women” rather than the desired “everyone vs rapists”.

Tiny Truss Tower?

Managed this as a millennial - had absolutely nothing to do with my parents helping pay half my deposit. Nope, absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever.

I often come up with a fun nickname for UK leaders - from “Creepy Uncle Boris”, through “Sussy Sunak”.

I’d like to inaugurate “Stasi Starmer” in memory of this absolutely insane decision.

“Statistical fact” - as someone forced to teach statistics, whenever a student writes this phrase they lose marks. Any statistical statement is an implication of evidence, not a statement of fact.

So, if the damage increased the value of the building, it would necessitate the courts paying? Sounds reasonable.

When 4chan has the moral high ground, it’s time to seriously reconsider a law.

"How do I share my screen?’

“Ctrl+shift+H”