That’s the spirit.

Doesn’t sound appetizing enough.

It’s frustrating how many of these systems rely on hard coded word or even substring matching, and that in a world of large language models that can evaluate semantics.

Or maybe it was the fuck

Thinking itself is not easy for many, and that doesn’t even include the critical .

Do they have a foreigner ms armee? They should enlist him immediately.

I think that’s two different things. Billionaires can and do get continuously richer also when there are napkins in a restaurant to satisfy customers.

Actually, satisfied customers are return customers, which every businessman knows are the best customers. Amazon certainly knows that. The reason why Amazon is so succesful is because they focus intensely on customer satisfaction. They’re fucking their employers, yes, but they wouldn’t need to. They just do because the regulations allow for it.

According to your statement there must be someone getting fucked. An trade where all parties are satisfied does not seem possible.

Disruptive technology doesn’t follow cost covering logic though. Covering costs is hardly interesting for investors. Netflix ran at loss to grow quickly and cement the market share.

Recent enshittification occurs because the market came to an understanding that the fight for the market share is over and now it’s time to satisfy investors.

But several things can be true at the same thing time. Infrastructure is expensive and investors want to maximize return of investment.

People always underestimate the work power needed to keep automated things running. And even more to set them up in the first place.

Many things that look like fully automated still have people in the loop.

Oh yes. With that sort of thing better double check each time.

If it spits out the wrong syntax my compiler will tell me immediately.

I understand. You refuse to accept something that is fairly obvious for many Lemmy users and want to put a burden of proof on me, and because I don’t want to take on additional work for someone I neither know nor agree with, you are happy to keep your opinion, as am I to keep mine.

Introducing regulations usually doesn’t mean complete and utter ban.

First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not.

So guns changed over the past 100 years, but the laws did not adjust. Sounds like a bad idea. How can a new technology a cause for a new problem? Did that ever happen???/s

Semi-automatic rifles were not overly widespread before the 1990, and when they became, in 1994 there was a time-limited ban for semi-automatic firearms, which then expired in 2004. And what are the major concerns for mass shootings in recent years? It is semi-automatic firearms.

If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime.

Why do you think they want to ban all guns? But when you’ve a gun proponents such as in the US you gotta get real about what you can achieve. So it is not hypocrisy to focus on assault weaponry.

That hobby thing can be said about many forbidden things, for example smoking cannabis.

“Just ban guns” is the slogan for demonstrations. Any politician who is elected for doing that will obviously need to have a better plan. Usually such plans don’t fit on a poster.

Civilian disarmamends happened in various countries, i.e. Australia in 1996/97, UK after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, Japan post WW2, South Africa in 2000, Colombia in 2000 and 2016, New Zealand after Christchurch.

Strategies and success vary, but it’s not unheard of.

Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem.

Could you elaborate that a bit?

What country is that?

Ok, Stalin