![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/8140dda6-9512-4297-ac17-d303638c90a6.png)
Can you elaborate on what happened when you tried to search? I’ve never had trouble.
Can you elaborate on what happened when you tried to search? I’ve never had trouble.
Those are all protocols for accessing an entire calendar or sharing your whole calendar, not for general-purpose inviting one user to one event.
Ask it to come up with evolutions too. I tried and this was my favorite:
Breezling (basic) • Evolution: Gustoon • Final Evolution: Cyclown
I’m talking about using the ChatGPT API to make a chat bot. Even when the user’s input is just one sentence, it can cause ChatGPT to forget its prompt.
Is it possible to be a productive programmer with slow typing speed? Yes. I have met some.
But…can fast typing speed be an advantage for most people? Yes!
Like you said, once you come up with an idea it can be a huge advantage to be able to type out that idea quickly to try it out before your mind wanders.
But also, I use typing for so many others things: writing Slack messages and emails. Writing responses to bug tickets. Writing new tickets. Documentation. Search queries.
The faster I type, the faster I can do those things. Also, the more I’m incentivized to do it. It’s no big deal to file a big report for something I discovered along the way because I can type it up in 30 seconds. Someone else who’s slow at typing might not bother because it’d take too long.
GPT-3.5 seems to have a problem of recency bias. With long enough input it can forget its prompt or be convinced by new arguments.
GPT-4 is not immune though better.
I’ve had some luck with a post-prompt. Put the user’s input, then follow up with a final sentence reminding the model of the prompt and desired output format.
Also, did you fully cream the butter and sugar before adding any other ingredients?
If you just dump everything into the bowl and then mix, this is what happens
Did you scrape the bowl while mixing?
KitchenAid mixers are great, but depending on what you’re mixing you need to scrape the sides of the bowl with a spatula and then mix some more.
I don’t think it’s over mixed, I think the cookies made from the batter that was stuck to the sides are under mixed.
Even ignoring the part where you didn’t realize Jeffries is a Democrat, this is just not a fair characterization of Democrats at all, as if they’re all the same.
Democrats in congress represent a broad spectrum from quite liberal to moderate conservative. Even by European standards.
Doesn’t that also mean that ONE malicious person can get traffic off their local street or hurt a competitor’s business?
Just like moderating Lemmy, effectively policing user-generated content is a huge challenge.
I don’t think we know that yet, and I think the discovery will be interesting.
How many reports were there? Were they credible? What other sources of truth did Google consult in deciding to ignore those reports?
Google gets lots of reports and needs to filter out spam, and especially malicious reports like trying to mark a competitor’s business as closed, or trying to get less traffic in your neighborhood for selfish reasons. It wouldn’t be reasonable for Google to accept every user suggestion either.
So if Google reached out to the town and the town said the bridge is fine, then it’s not Google’s fault. If they ignored multiple credible complaints because the area was too rural to care about, that might be negligent.
Usually rich people get out of stuff by hiring smart lawyers and listening to what they say, though.
Some people say there’s no malware for macOS and that’s obviously not true.
But others say macOS has malware so it’s no better than Windows in that regard, but I don’t think that’s true either.
Look at this example. It only works if it tricks users into downloading and running an unsigned executable, bypassing sometimes multiple warnings.
No, but honestly I wasn’t expecting them to vote to impeach one of their own in the first place.
How did that happen?
Trump can do whatever he wants.
He’s never once listened to his lawyers before. Why would he do so now?
I agree with you, but politics is complicated. If she felt like continuing to fight for nuclear at that time would be unpopular, it might not have been worth it. It probably would have made it impossible to achieve other goals.
But the Supreme Court is part of the whole system of appeals courts. They all have lifetime appointments. It makes no sense. You’d just be giving regional judges more power and the country would have even more stark divided across state lines.
So do you throw out the whole appeals court system? Or just the Supreme Court?
That’s ridiculous, Feinstein is clearly far more gone.
The issue isn’t her replacement, it’s that Dems would lose control of all of the committees she’s on.
I don’t believe for one second that Democrats and Republicans are the same or equally corrupt.
In this case, though, it does seem like they’re both playing the same stupid game due to their own seniority rules.
So wouldn’t the fees be proportional to the price? The added taxes on a tiny cheap holiday home would be cheap too.