> If . . . the replacement has a higher version number than the one in the SYSBCKUP directory, then the replacement was copied into the SYSBCKUP directory for safekeeping.
This as well. I know there are a million ways for a malicious installer to brick Win95, but a particularly funny one is hijacking the OS to perpetually rewrite its own system components back to compromised version number ∞ whenever another installer tries to clean things up.
It doesn't say for certain, but assuming the version of this they settled on (restoring components after the installation finished) is what they shipped in the original version of Windows 95, then no, I don't think this could have caused hangs in the installer itself (unless Win95 misjudged whether the installer had completed or not and started the restore process early?).
The right has an extremely large chip on their shoulder when insisting that the their _more popular media outlets_ do not count as "mainstream media" because... reasons.
Fox news, who constantly tells it's listeners that it's #1 in the world for news, also lambasts "mainstream media". After bragging their the most mainstream of mainstream
That's just something they say to scare the children.
In any event, the point of a decent algorithm is that if the result isn't complying with the action, upcoming updates to the weights will fix it. Moreover, changes to the weight would be such that they optimize for maximum learning.
It is so weird seeing people preach for an obscure entity to do something so basic, and being shut down when asking for transparency. Today's AIs could write good model-development algorithms for tasks that are a hundred times more complicated.
Oops, the unaccountable algorithm eased when it should have tightened and Volcker Shocked when it should have eased. No prob, the weights will get tweaked and all will be well. Once the economic crisis blows over, anyway . . .
> That's just something they say to scare the children.
Is that really your response to “past results aren’t indicative of future performance”? Honestly at that point why not just let ChatGPT run loose and set guidance? Please, I implore you to think about the issue a bit deeper.
No, they're referring to an error that pops up when you visit a page whose url ends in 'women-in-the-world.html'; you can click okay and still browse the page though :-)
Haha thank you. That went over my head. I dismissed that box without reading the error. But... I can neither confirm nor deny I understand what you are referring to ;)
So (if we take your interpretation at face value) you could call it a 'presidential power grab', or maybe even an 'executive power grab' (if we stretch things and assume power is being transferred away from executive departments subject to greater oversight), but 'federal power grab' still doesn't make sense. No power is being grabbed from or by the federal government as an entity.
DirectFile was a material product that had a 94% satisfaction rate.[0] Within the remit of this organization, if making filing taxes free and easy doesn't count as making people's lives better, then I'm not sure what does.
I'm not sure how much control the USDS that developed DirectFile (or whatever was left of it) had over that given the reasons that article cites for the confusion
> The IRS deemphasized the program on its website, the report said, and the media coverage this filing season focused on the question of if the tool existed or would continue to in the future.
> Billionaire Elon Musk caused confusion in early February when he posted on X that the team powering Direct File was “deleted,” leading to headlines like “Elon Musk says he 'deleted' IRS Direct File. Can taxpayers still use the free service?” Direct File saw a drop in use after that.
To be honest, I'm impressed there was even a 16% traffic increase this year at all.
Ask yourself: Could this website have been written anytime in the last 8 years? If so, why wasn't it? Given where we are now, the stat I gave, and that only a small number of people are mourning something important speak to my point?
> Ask yourself: Could this website have been written anytime in the last 8 years?
No? It was authorized by the IRA, which was only passed in 2022.
> Given where we are now, the stat I gave, and that only a small number of people are mourning something important speak to my point?
I mean, I wouldn't expect regular users to mourn anything until tax season rolls around next year and people find the tool is missing; even still, I actually have seen a lot of people mad about this, not that it matters. And I still think 16% growth after months of reporting about it getting shut down isn't bad.
That wasn't obvious to me, because in that case the answer to why this website wasn't created in previous years seems obvious - because USDS wasn't being demolished in previous years.
Interesting, thanks for reinforcing the point. I would note the two columns 'From Individuals' (which includes all employees) vs. the 'From Organization' column. Worth noting that the R-affiliated GOPAC is the only listed recipient that actually recieved funds from the organization.
Of course, this page doesn't include the $1M inauguration donation, so it's still incomplete.
I suppose we all see what we want to see and have reasons to explain away any dissonance. $1m to an inauguration committee for an already elected president might counterbalance the disproportionate donations to democrats during campaign season from execs, employees, and their family members. I mean, bet on the wrong horse, amends must be made, right? Money goes where the power is. If it hadn’t been Trump, Intuit would be working Joe Kamala. The data is the data.
Yup, and what I see is that Intuit, Inc. gave to exactly one PAC, that donates exclusively to R candidates. Tesla employees also overwhelmingly donated to Kamala Harris[0]; does this mean Tesla and Elon were backing Kamala to win?
> If it hadn’t been Trump, Intuit would be working Joe Kamala.
They didn't donate to him in 2020, so I'm not sure why I should assume this.[1]
At the time this movie was being made I don't think NK was any more sanctioned than any other Eastern Bloc country, and plenty of other Eastern Bloc countries had little issue scraping together enough cash to pay westerners to do stuff
> At the time this movie was being made I don't think NK was any more sanctioned than any other Eastern Bloc country
The U.S. “imposed sanctions in the 1950s and tightened them further after international bombings against South Korea by North Korean agents during the 1980s” [1]. And by the 80s, savvy Eastern Bloc countries could read the writing on the wall.
Nobody in the Eastern Bloc was trading with the US very much; I was thinking more about other countries. North Korea would have been relatively unfettered within the Eastern Bloc, for example, same as most communist nations.
Also, the director was kidnapped in 1978, so before those sanctions were tightened down in the 80s and well before any Eastern Bloc states could see any writing on the wall. I'd be curious how those restrictions compared to those the US had on most other communist nations.
[0]https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/anti-zionist-tag/ek...
reply