Shawn is a moron.

"I aimed my rifle at that person's head and pulled the trigger, but I swear I didn't want them to die"

Tesla should be broken up and reassembled with zero overlap in management.

And yes, legally it won't stick, but the shitty south african oligarch should absolutely be tried for murder.

relevance in context = 0

Just submitted a similar comment. Thank you for pointing this out as well.

As much as I despise Putin and his regime, this whole story reeks of bullshit. If it's possible to "plant an incendiary device" on air cargo, then the safety checks are fucked up, also if anyone seriously wanted to bring a plane down, they'd put a trivial pressure sensor inside to trigger at altitude, not a more complex (and error prone) timer.

Charge the stupid fuck Tesla chain of decision making with murder. This bullshit "self driving" advertising is premeditated, that's no longer manslaughter.

And charge the driver(s) with manslaughter under aggravating circumstances.

But oh no, muh profts, hurr-durrr....

because of the ~~(mis?)~~use of the word “contradictory”,

I used that only in my second comment, after the first person got flustered :) Go up two more in the comment chain and you'll see my original comment. Although, I stand by the second comment as well - the article is contradicting itself.

If I say

The square root of -1 is i [...] The square root of -1 is not defined. [..]

Only to THEN go on to explain what imaginary numbers are, then I have still contradicted myself :)

Interesting... today I learned. But since I only ever use std::cout in my debugging code (i.e. DURING debugging) or for status outputs of the application (for small apps), and for everything else I use my own logging framework that uses printf & syslog udp messages... luckily nothing I need to refactor :D

DO IT!

You are judging a field specialist(s) on basically their communication skills.

"Carly Cassella is a Senior Journalist at ScienceAlert"

Or am I?

Also, it's not my fault that people got all flustered about me simply pointing out that poor phrasing with "do they even proofread?"

Edit: goat -> got

  std::cout << "C++ is simple and fun ... you cretin" <<std::endl;

You dropped something.

Let me break it down so you see the point I was making - in case the bold wasn't enough:

Using high-resolution scanners, researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford have shown microscopic, structural abnormalities in the brainstems of those recovering from COVID-19. Signs of brain inflammation were present up to 18 months after first contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Here, they refer to people recovering from COVID-19, thus clearly indicate that patients are alive.

[…] In living brains of those with long COVID, however, conventional MRI studies have shown no structural abnormalities in the brainstem.

This paragraph immediately follows one that talks about autopsy(!) results, and here, they start a sentence with "in living brains [..], however", setting the sentence up as a contradiction to the previous one, with an emphasis on the word living in the article itself.

Here's an example how the sentence should be written to not seemingly cause a contradiction / misdirect the reader:

However, previous studies conducted with conventional MRI had shown no structural abnormalities in the brainstem in living brains.

They put emphasis on the change in observation from autopsy to living brains, linking this paragraph more strongly to the preceeding one, when they should have put emphasis on the conventional studies, building the context for the subsequent paragraph.

yes, I can guess that explanation when trying to figure out the seeming contradiction. I don't read scientific articles to end up guessing because the author can't string together a well structured text. :)

I just checked - SPF is set up. I had never heard about DKIM, but I checked, and it's also enabled. So as I said, google is just full of shiteaters.

I have to choose what to spend my time on. If an article contradicts itself that obviously after I spent 2-5 minutes reading, I'll go look for more intelligent texts.

Using high-resolution scanners, researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford have shown microscopic, structural abnormalities in the brainstems of those recovering from COVID-19.

Signs of brain inflammation were present up to 18 months after first contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

[..]

In living brains of those with long COVID, however, conventional MRI studies have shown no structural abnormalities in the brainstem.

Do these people not proof-read their own articles?

Would give you the chance to have it read "You are a total cunt!" though, selectively insulting the idiots who use LLM (it's not AI) goggles.

They regularly filter first emails from my self-hosted domain to friends. So clearly they know jack shit and just go overboard on false positives. Google is full of pieces of shit.

That's why I put the (larger) there - if you are a small company maybe you can not keep up a separate office infrastructure from your deployment / test systems in case of SW development. If you are a large enterprise and use Microsoft infrastructure, then either the people making the decisions in IT are getting a lot of bribes, or they are really really stupid :) Or both.

And I mean that absolutely without anger against Microsoft, and purely in terms of security nightmare and waste of office productivity because using a contemporary windows system wastes so much more time of any given user that each desk worker probably loses 20-70% productivity compared to a lean operating system (and that would include something like Windows 2000 / XP).

there's

1. US government, with a mandate to use Windows for the same reason that Boeing CEOs of the past decade aren't in jail for hundredfold manslaughter
2. other governments, where again, "shitty corporate IT" applies, but with s/corporate/administrative

Even worse: governments using Windows are absolutely giving the US services direct access to all their confidential files & communication.