S10 E12 (The Doctor Falls) is the end of (Modern) Doctor Who. Such a perfect episode epitomising the character, and closing an arc for one of the longest villains. He even ‘dies’ at the end.

Everything since then has been badly written and purposefully disrespectful to the cannon and the audience, and has wasted so many fantastic actors.

Did the generated code get merged? I’d be curious to see the PRs

Source: vibes

Sorry random internet person let me forward your opinion to my old Computer Science professor and have them update it.

AI as a field goes back to the 50s, long before any concept of machine learning, or what ‘intelligence’ was possible for a computer to achieve.

AI in the computation sense can refer to any system that appears intelligent. This includes simple logic. It seems to be you that is confusing AI with Machine Learning.

I only use it when I know exactly the code I’m trying to produce, but just saving time if it can write it for me. Somewhere I saw this described as ‘toil’ vs. ‘domain knowledge’, and it definitely reduces toil even if I have to correct it. Anywhere that I wouldn’t know how to correct it, I don’t trust it.

Write better code, with good names and sensible interfaces. Comments can get bugs just like code, but it doesn’t have a compiler or unit tests, so only code review keeps it aligned.

Feel free to contribute any features you feel it is missing

The plot has already being discussed at length. I want to talk about quidditch.

Quick recap, in quidditch, scoring goals scores 10 or 20 points, catching the snitch scores 150 points, and ends the game. This effectively means that the only way a team can catch the snitch and lose is if they are over 150 points behind.

As a result of this, logically the seaker should not attempt to catch the snitch if the score is this unfavourable, meaning the game is always decided by the seaker, and nothing anyone else is doing remotely matters. Remember also we see the audience is rarely able to see what the seeker is doing from the stands.

Now you may say “what about the world cup in book 4, Krumm catches the snitch and still loses”. This can only be attributed to Krumm got mad at his team, or maybe bored, otherwise he should just wait and see if his team can score a goal or two. If the other team’s seaker catches the snitch you lose anyway, so why even try until it’s going to win you the game? Maybe he was showing off to Hermione.

We also know for certain that this happens very rarely, as the odds given to the twins by Ludo Bagman are very high, leading to a big payout. Therefore quidditch is entirely decided by something that happens well out of sight of the audience, and would be terrible to watch or play.

As an aside, the rules around catching the snitch leading to a draw are never mentioned, but I assume they have some penalty shootout system

That’s why showing the expected outcome is also very important. It can feel very verbose, but the number of times I’ve been unclear as to if something worked because the documentation goes on immediately to the next step without demonstrating the success/failure states is extremely frustrating.

It definitely can, but it won’t if you’re looking for it

Can you explain what this is, so that I don’t have to google it and end up on a list?

At least an expensive car is usually a better product though, so many of these t-shirts are simply cheap cotton but the price is $$$$ because the logo of a company that also makes actually expensive products is on it.

This is now top of my list

If a foreign nation dropped a bomp on your house or rolled a tank down your street you might just start to side with the people saying they’re going to get them back.

Israel’s strategy can and will only lead to more Hamas support because they make no distinction between civilians and Hamas. They have never had a real plan to ‘return hostages’, only to wipe out the Palestinian people, because they perceive the idea of Palestinian identity to be an existential threat.

I think it is generally because of our deeply capitalist society and upbringing that we are told to believe people are greedy and selfish, therefore we must be greedy and selfish ourselves in order to not get taken advantage of, or replaced.

Liberal is the opposite of authoritarian. Progressive is the opposite of conservative. American 1 dimensional politics does not define all of political conversation.

‘I recently took a french class, and yet I don’t even know half of these german words’

Not voting is still participating in the system because you live with the results, sorry mate. You don’t get to opt out then absolve yourself of guilt from the result if its the worst case.

Your principles are sound, but not voting in any election is imo equivalent to voting for whoever wins. If that turns out to be Trump your moral high ground has no basis because you actively enabled that result.

Voting for a candidate doesn’t have to mean endorsing their entire being, it can be for many reasons, most noteably tactical voting to ensure the least bad outcome.