sadly, no. Anticheat Systems are designed to be paranoid as fuck. So even some readout of the hardware used that WINE handles a tad differently than Windows might trip it.

Because… why would mass murderers lie? That’d be naughty, they would never do that!

That’s what happens around any toilet in a 2km radius when Taco Bell has a major sale.

Same in German.

Oh, you actually believed that story? Whoops. Sorry! It was actually me who ate your Cheetos and downed your Vodka.

It doesn’t. It will require you to reboot for every god-damned line of code that has changed.

Na, nothing. Did an update today. Nothing bad happened at al, Because why would it?

standing on the shoulders of giants.

I really have a hard time deciding if that is the scandal the article makes it out to be (although there is some backpedaling going on). The crucial point is: 8% of the decisions turn out to be wrong or misjudged. The article seems to want us to think that the use of the algorithm is to blame. Yet, is it? Is there evidence that a human would have judged those cases differently? Is there evidence that the algorithm does a worse job than humans? If not, then the article devolves onto blatant fear mongering and the message turns from “algorithm is to blame for deaths” into “algorithm unable to predict the future in 100% of cases”, which of course it can’t…

But you are only allowed to report things that seem important to Americans in any community that might be visited by Americans. Come on, everybody knows that.

/S

I got a toddler at home. I’m very familiar with their product range :P

In a country that has neither got anything to do with Trump nor with the shooting… Someone needs to pamper a certain voter demographic, I’d say

I was replying to the person who posted the Henry Ford-article about gut bacteria and ADHD. Thanks for adding this information, though, people might need it for the original article as well.

Any reporting about a study that conveniently forgets to mention the number of people that took part in the study is immediately suspicious

I dislike that a) it’s considered binary, while the vast majority of people will not be even close to either extreme b) people put themselves into those extremes anyway, throw around the wildest (and mostly useless) definitions of what “being an introvert” is supposed to mean, more often than not dripping with victim mentality c) people use their supposed status akin to a neurodiversity d) people openly blaming others for not being allowed to be like they are because others dare to be like they are (“I have it so hard in life because I’m an introvert in a world full of extroverts”) e) people define large chunks of themselves around some label they largely defined themselves and want this label to be respected as if it was a real thing, an illness almost. f) people define large chunks of themselves around some label that is just meant to very loosely describe some aspect of a human being’s character, not the whole human

Let’s see how many “definitions” of supposed “introverts” or “extroverts” we get this time. It’s pop-psychology BS, people. Nothing more.

If life gives you lemons, have your scientists make lemon grenades out of them

Oh by Zeus,.may the gods have mercy for I have none.

I refuse to read anything after the headline to keep my blood below boiling point. Did I miss anything?

Thats the issue. Not only with poverty, but with overspending in general. Usually, money savin measures take time to become noticeable, since there is always some inertia in money flows (things that were already die when the saving measures were started, subscriptions, etc), so people who overspent will immediately see a drastic downfall of their living standards when they start saving, but still overshoot their budget for at least a few weeks usually, until all the overspending is paid off and the savings start to kick in. That’s a really dangerous phase because people often struggle to understand if they are doing it right or not.