scott_w

11 ms·

121.
by scott_w 6mo ago
Yep, your comment reminds me of a time my mother was about to hit a bird in the road. However, she was too busy arguing with the passenger to notice, and her driving was starting to become erratic already. I decided not to tell her because
122.
by scott_w 6mo ago
The few Tesla post-mortems I’ve read early on stated that FSD turned off before impact and used this as a defence to their system. If they shared that this happened 1 second before impact (so far too late for a human to respond), I’d have
123.
by scott_w 6mo ago
> What is the use of a CEO if not to have enough depth of knowledge about the different aspects of running a business? Bit of a difference between “having depth of knowledge in their business” and “can speak off-the-cuff with the necessa
124.
by scott_w 6mo ago
Let me be more clear on what I mean by “wing it,” because “having templates” doesn’t really cut it. Anyone can bang out a “we have a problem” template, so why does the CEO need to attach their name to it? Once you’re at the point of needing
125.
by scott_w 6mo ago
You expect the CEO of a company to have the legal depth of knowledge AND knowledge of all their customers, contracts and SLAs to be able to wing a communication and not somehow trip over all of that? They also should understand every possib
126.
by scott_w 6mo ago
So you’re telling me a CEO must also be a practicing lawyer? Because any other option is how you guarantee your company gets sued into oblivion.
127.
by scott_w 6mo ago
There’s no such thing as “monopoly on Apple-produced processors” because that’s absurd. The monopoly for MacBook would be “consumer laptops” most likely. Apple does not have a monopoly in consumer laptops to the best of my knowledge.
128.
by scott_w 6mo ago
There’s no such thing as “having a monopoly on iPhone” in law. You have to have a monopoly in a market, of which iPhone is part of the “smartphone” market. It is not a monopoly in the smartphone market, to the best of my knowledge.
129.
by scott_w 6mo ago
Yeah… no it wouldn’t. I’ve watched users have their bank accounts emptied (by accident) because they kept refreshing. A measly £150 isn’t going to register until it’s too late anyway.
130.
by scott_w 6mo ago
I don’t see how they’ll have different results, just because the aim is different. You just… take cover. Then come back once the planes fly away and continue what you were doing.
131.
by scott_w 6mo ago
They have and Ukraine haven’t surrendered (nor do they look like they will any time soon), so I don’t see how it wit k a in Iran.
132.
by scott_w 6mo ago
I haven’t seen it but the article makes it sound like, when you ask for it to make a change to your code, that’s the point it puts the ad in. I think (but not 100% sure) that it also puts it directly into your codebase, without you knowing
133.
by scott_w 7mo ago
Just to try and understand the decision, an analogy that’s coming to mind would be like saying a van manufacturer wouldn’t have liability if it’s used in a bank robbery. However if the manufacturer sold it with the intent for the buyer to u
134.
by scott_w 7mo ago
I never said they were good Total War players ;-)
135.
by scott_w 7mo ago
Because knowing this would require him to read the article but reading and details are boring.
136.
by scott_w 7mo ago
Honestly, the way this administration has behaved makes me think someone there is obsessed with playing Total War and thinks that’s how the real world works. It’s all about winning battles and painting the map red, white and blue (Greenland
137.
by scott_w 7mo ago
Then I’d suggest you read the article because he absolutely mentions it, twice in fact.
138.
by scott_w 7mo ago
Correct, the term "pronatalists" is in scare-quotes, suggesting that their belief/concern is fake.
139.
by scott_w 7mo ago
I totally agree, the upper chamber can and should make amendments to legislation. In this case, they made a generally good amendment to the Employment Rights Bill (allowing "at-will" dismissal up to the first 6 months rather tha
140.
by scott_w 7mo ago
> There is no "primacy" of the House in the US system. I know, I'm saying this is not a good approach, for the reasons I gave above.
141.
by scott_w 7mo ago
> Which manifesto commitments have been blocked in this parliament? To be clear, I didn't say they "blocked," I said: > though the Lords recently have been playing silly buggers around the Employment Rights Act This was
142.
by scott_w 7mo ago
I think a good revising chamber is critical to good democracy, though the Lords recently have been playing silly buggers around the Employment Rights Act and ignoring the Salisbury Convention (which is that they shouldn’t block manifesto co
143.
by scott_w 7mo ago
> I would blame depression, but I have a great psychiatrist who has me on antidepressants, anti-anxiety meds, and mood stabilizers. Allow me to be blunt: you’re still suffering the symptoms of depression. I’m not a psychiatrist but you l
144.
by scott_w 7mo ago
I recall a lot of this comes from Java 5/6 where I think passing function pointers around was difficult, if not impossible. Back in those days, I had many a conversation with a friend who would ask "can Python do pattern/feat
145.
by scott_w 7mo ago
> If anything it's the other way round, if you're not talking about business domain modeling (where data structures first is a valid approach). And even there, the data models usually come about to make specific business proces
146.
by scott_w 7mo ago
> (if my memory is correct, oddly the engine uses quads rather than triangles) I'm also working off a near 30-year-old memory but I recall quads not being unusual around this time. I remember a preview of Tomb Raider 3 in Official P
147.
by scott_w 7mo ago
> The worker is not an employee. Yes they are. That’s the point of IR35 and why it’s not a class issue. If the person wants to be a business owner, then operate as a self-employed contractor and not an employee. It’s nothing to do with c
148.
by scott_w 7mo ago
> You wrote, in your second reply: "First off, IR35 does not apply to self-employed workers, it only applies to a worker contracting via a limited company." Apologies, I misread and thought you said I claimed IR35 does apply,
149.
by scott_w 7mo ago
> you claimed IR35 does not apply to self-employed workers as though that were a meaningful distinction No I didn’t. I wouldn’t make this claim because I asked an accountant exactly this question 8 years ago, so I know this is not the ca
150.
by scott_w 7mo ago
> Plumbers typically provide services to individuals, not businesses > But if that same plumber were delivering services to a corporation meeting Chapter 10 criteria, the client would have to perform a status determination So? You’ve

More ›