But that can of soup did irreperable harm to the sheet of glass protecting the painting. Wahh.
And the corn flour did irreperable harm to the lichen on the stones, but climate change certainly won't. Wahh.
Their arguments are always just knee jerk grasping at straws.
It looks to me like the back of his chair. Ghost arm is much more entertaining, though.
Carrots help you hear better.
It's true, but only in the dark.
Would.
That's rough.
The cynic in me suspects that it was removed for having no monetization. It'd be a potential direct competitor to Google's other offerings, and if people played that instead of something else, it'd potentially eat in to Google's profits.
Regardless, it's shitty of Google to not have any recourse.
I was struggling with this too. You can click the 3 dots to the immediate upper right of the code block to view it as raw text, and it looks much nicer on mobile devices.
That was a short read, and very well written. It really illustrates how most social media users talk authoritatively about things they understand very poorly (and I won't say that doesn't apply to myself as well).
I mean, yes and no. Colloquially, there's some confusion between AI and Strong AI. Strong AI is an AI that mimics human intelligence (which doesn't exist yet), whereas AI is an umbrella term for a lot of loosely related topics in comp sci. The way it's often used currently where AI = LLMs/GANs lately is incorrect, but they both do fall under the field of AI.
It's certainly a problem that some people think that AI = Strong AI = LLMs.
Dark.
I thought it used to be done manually, but now there's automation built in to YouTube, I recall hearing. It might only be available to certain users, though.
I think I recall it being discussed in relation to Veritasium, although I can't recall if it was a third party mentioning it or Derek (Veritasium) himself.
I haven't heard of it built into news websites before, but it also wouldn't surprise me if that already was a thing.
Yes, they have automated a/b testing for thumbnails and titles IIRC.
Not to underplay the craziness of this, but I'd assumed from the headline it meant annually, but it's actually current active deals over the period of 2011-2030:
Of course that leaves out any future deal that'll be made in the that period.
It definitely would've been nice if they'd given us what they're spending in an average year.