Had to look it up as well, but apparently it is how you type “hoe” in a calculator upside down…

I’d say in the first picture he has a fake smile. I like the second one better.

Your feet will taste marvelous after that.

Yeah, we live in a weird world based around absurd prudish values. I do believe it’s increasingly less frowned upon in some European countries, especially Denmark in my experience.

While tight shirts and external secondary sex distinctions are mostly not an issue.

Or it’s the order of commands, looking at how the fingers point, in which case it’s the reverse of what you imply he’s trying to say.

And for the love of all that is sacred, that first letter is not a D. And I don’t know what they smoked when creating it.

The point is, laying all these people off with performance as reason protects Cloudflare in not having to pay extra (which would be legally needed if the employee was not at fault).

This is probably not any kind of proof she can use, but it does make people aware of how Cloudflare operates.

It’s understandable companies have to fire people and as an employee you’d probably do best to accept the harsh reality of a business. But if they really communicate fake causes with lay-offs (not only hurting the employee mentally, but also financially bypassing rightful compensation by law), this should be known by the public.

To be fair though, we cannot confirm her statements to be true either. But I think it’s an interesting share nonetheless.

dodo / pepe as well

Well, in my experience it’s mostly interaction bugs. Quite noticeable when you’re used to Chrome not having these issues.

Desktop runs great, but Firefox on Android seems to be noticeably buggy here and there sadly. I still use it, but I can imagine that might drive people out of the ecosystem.

Many people get used to the synchronization of their passwords / bookmarks cross-channel. More advanced users have a separate password management for this I’d figure, but that’s not the default for 90% I’d guess.

You’re willingly confirming something you rate as sensitive, trying to bring more credibility to it by being an extra shout and referencing a virtually unverifiable needle in a haystack ‘authority’ as Google, but find the sensitivity a reason for not sharing your information.

How can you reason like this?

Wintereenmas ducks quickly

I found a screw that was a tamper proof torx apparently. With a hole in the middle. Is that even higher up?

Add terms like “photo of” to your prompt, I believe you can even add types of cameras and lenses to get a specific result (with some trial / error of course).

It’s better than the native Mail app by Apple.

A bunch of cells in rapid development with the potential to become a human being. Murder is a strong term, but in a broad sense I don’t think your insinuation is wrong per se.

This might be getting a bit controversial, but for the sake of discussion:

The important thing here is, do you mind if that potential for life is taken away. In this case we place priority on the human being that eventually has to dedicate her life to that potential. Or is that new potential more important than that already existing, conscious human being (especially when there are physical / mental problems involved)?

It comes down to why we live, and why must we live? Personally I believe trying to avoid (potential of) suffering is a more reasonable concept.

If one gives life to a baby, you give it a potential for suffering which it otherwise does not. I’d say the ways one can suffer is of a greater weight than the ways one can be happy. So if you go the route of creating life, you better be damn confident that you are in a good position to do that.

In that philosophy ‘murdering’ a potential with a large chance of creating more suffering for the collective is not that bad. One might view this differently when the being is conscious and might actively not want to die, as we bring the complexity of individual human choice to the table and what worth that has; but I think we can agree that is not applicable on the unborn potential human being discussed in this topic.

That’s just dying with extra steps.

We start to die in the process of being born.

If for example a client application is (accidentally) firing doubled requests to your API, you might get deadlocks in this case. Which is not bad per se, as you don’t want to conform to that behaviour. But it might also happen if you have two client applications with updates to the same resource (patching different fields for example), in that case you’re blocking one party so a retry mechanism in the client or server side might be a solution.

Just something we noticed a while ago when using transactions.