In languages in which every function is unary but there is a convenience syntax for writing "multiargument" functions that produces curried functions, so that the type functions of type "a -> b -> c" can be written as if their type was "a b -> c", but which also have tuples such that "multiargument" functions could equally conveniently be written as having type "(a, b) -> c", and where the syntax for calling each type of function is equally straightforward in situations that don't require "partial application" (where the curried form has a natural added utility), people overwhelming use the syntax that produces curried functions.
People only predominantly use uncurried multiargument functions in languages which make writing and/or calling curried functions significant syntactic overhead.
> Tell that to the 1200+ civilians murdered, raped, mutilated and burned alive on October 7th.
It's pretty clear that a substantial number of them were killed by the Israeli military in the course of its deliberate war crime of indiscriminate attack with civilians in the line of fire under the "Hannibal Directive". Investigations by Israeli and Western media and numerous Israeli (both military sources and civilian witnesses) accounts support this.
Its gotten relatively little play in US media specifically, but US media acts as a propaganda arm of the IDF and the Israeli government as much (even more, arguably) than it does for the domestic military and police forces, ignoring damaging stories, and when it can't completely ignore them using exonerative and passive voice framing to avoid attributing effects to the actors and actions causing them.
Search all the sources - there were only 14 confirm out of the 828 civilians + 367 soldiers.
There were many people being shot in their homes in the first hour, a long time before IDF managed to reach those areas by foot. As of air, there were not enough attack helicopters to cover all that area, and there were no clear commands of where and how much to attack, that pilots mostly did not attack at all.
> substantial number of them were killed by the Israeli military
Let me stop you right there, the Palestinian (hamas) raid on Israel was livestreamed for the psychological terror effect, and there is absolutely a mountain of videos showing how everything happened. There's an overwhelming number of witness accounts telling the horrors committed by Palestinians towards families in their homes, the music festival, etc. You can still visit the places they torched ny hand. Please don't spread disinformation on October 7th.
> Let me stop you right there, the Palestinian (hamas) raid on Israel was livestreamed for the psychological terror effect, and there is absolutely a mountain of videos showing how everything happened.
No, there aren't videos showing how "everything" happened. There are videos showing a part of what happened, and you are extrapolating how everything happened from the subset of those that you have seen, even though you acknowledge that they were created as a propaganda effort to create exactly the impression you have derived from them.
The videos, the security cameras footage, alongside numerous first hand accounts paint a very clear, minute by minute picture, which I'm not sure you bothered to look into.
Hamas raided numerous towns near Gaza where they murdered people and children in their homes. This is where most people died. This and the music festival where people literally came to dance peacefully.
Under no circumstances did IDF kill 1200 Israeli civilians on October 7th, or "a substantial" part. This is disinformation and Hamas propaganda, and any source even implying this is lying to your face.
I don’t know that that's true. Iterating on the spec and development together as in traditional agile development seems to work well with AI. The pace is different (an iteration might be hours instead of weeks) and the human role is mostly as a combined architect/analyst/lead dev/product owner, but the issue that real requirements are rarely clear before software hits the hands of users doesn't go away just because an AI wiped more of the code.
Software development keeps going through YOLO->Engineering cycles, and the non-technical business folks are ALWAYS overindexing on the swing, in each direction, while the real pros are trying to navigate the new to find how to best leverage the power of new tooling without abandoning correctness while dealing with the expectations of people with power that far outstrips their comprehension of the domain.
Before ACA, insurance had a more traditional "dump you when you were in need" role that leveraged pre-existing conditions rules by, if you fell ill in a way which was likely to be sufficiently expensive to make this profitable, looking for any minimally tenable evidence of an undisclosed pre-existing condition (just to have something to cite as a pretext, it didn't need to be convincing), using it to justify cancelling your insurance, and avoiding any legal remedy by refunding your entire lifetime of premium payments.
Of course, whether or not you actually had a pre-existing condition when you had signed up for the original insurance, you now have one that prevents you from getting new insurance,
"Onlyfans agencies" have no business relationship with Onlyfans. They are social media management agencies that include Onlyfans as one of the platforms they "manage" their "clients" content on; their business relationship is with the creators who are the account owners, not with Onlyfans. Their existence, even if their clients effectively work for them rather than the reverse which is nominally the case, does not make the creators employees of Onlyfans, even functionally.
As I understand, the norm (beyond very basic occasional things to whet appetites) is the first branch of Option 2, whether or not chatters are employed. The creator (or their agency) paying for chatters without it producing revenue doesn't make any more sense than the creator spending their own time doing it.
Because what Person Y is doing is no more the whole of the job than what Person X is doing, and OF can more easily detect (though its still far from perfect, I've heard) and aggressively cracks down on when the person doing Person X's job is not the person who legally owns the account.
> How is this not fraud, or at least false advertising?
It may or may not be fraud or false advertising depending on the specific representations made in the particular case and the local fraud and false advertising statutes that apply in the case. So far, I think OF has been successfully in using their ToS to make the case that if it is any of those things, it is fraud or false advertising by the creator. But OF creators, even once you do the work to be able to sue them, are mostly not worth suing, and given the way chatters are more (though not uniquely) associated with creators being working with highly extractive agencies (who are nominally working for the creator, but functionally more like the reverse), that's probably particularly the case for those using chatters.
In languages in which every function is unary but there is a convenience syntax for writing "multiargument" functions that produces curried functions, so that the type functions of type "a -> b -> c" can be written as if their type was "a b -> c", but which also have tuples such that "multiargument" functions could equally conveniently be written as having type "(a, b) -> c", and where the syntax for calling each type of function is equally straightforward in situations that don't require "partial application" (where the curried form has a natural added utility), people overwhelming use the syntax that produces curried functions.
People only predominantly use uncurried multiargument functions in languages which make writing and/or calling curried functions significant syntactic overhead.
reply