Yeah, this one’s completely different from the one I remember. I found this blogspam around a greentext that matches my memory.

Just finished Stray. Yes, I got it because you play as a cat (who was created with great detail), but it also has solid storytelling, world building, and level design.

All of that is true, and the article brings it up. But the article is mostly about increasing accusations of Wikipedia having a liberal bias (e.g. recently from US Republican senator Ted Cruz), which the article suggests are not well-founded. I’m concerned about these increasing attacks, because if right-wing political types can reshape Wikipedia in the way they want, I expect all the biases you list will get worse, not better.

Thanks, that’s an excellent article, and it’s exactly what I was looking for.

I got hung up on this line:

This requires deterministic math with explicit rounding modes and precision, not the platform-dependent behavior you get with floats.

Aren’t floats mostly standardized these days? The article even mentions that standard. Has anyone here seen platform-dependent float behaviour?

Not that this affects the article’s main point, which is perfectly reasonable.

Started Into the Breach after getting it a few weeks ago in a Steam sale for less than $4. Excellent tactical gameplay with randomized encounters challenging enough that I haven’t successfully completed a run yet.

Automatics also allow for engine braking. From a quick search, it sounds like a toss-up as to whether that triggers brake lights. Regardless, the article mentions the benefit is not only from cars slowing down, but also from indicating that a car is preparing to stop or “that a stationary vehicle might initiate movement”. Neither of those can be done by an engine brake, so front brake lights would still have a benefit even with a driver that likes engine braking.

Oddly enough, that convention isn’t universal. Top-to-bottom is typical in the US, UK, and Commonwealth, while bottom-to-top is common in continental Europe and non-anglophone Americas.

I find this article confusing. It’s about “measures to reduce our economic vulnerability to American antagonism”, but I can’t see how improving the legal system or adding platform doors to the TTC are related to that. Perhaps the author is confusing economic resilience with economic stimulus?

I feel like she’s trying hard to distance herself from Trudeau, but after years being right beside him, I doubt she can shake it that easily.

Note the article is from two months ago, on October 10, but it’s still relevant. I was confused when I saw Chrystia Freeland quoted.

You can only pardon someone who was convicted of a crime.

I don’t believe that’s true. See the pardon of Richard Nixon, who was never even impeached, let alone charged. I believe there’s some debate on the validity of such a pardon, but none (including Nixon’s pardon) have been challenged in court.

Excuse me, that was Finn’s right arm.

The comic was released the day after the election, by an author who lives in the United States. I suspect the comic is explicitly about American politics.

everyone should know how to read/write/type the capital omega because of electrical resistance

I’ve noticed that, if an equation calls for a number squared, they usually really mean a number multiplied by its complex conjugate.

I’m sure plenty of pedestrians have been killed by cyclists.

I did some quick searching and found 2019 data from Europe. In all of the EU that year, bicycles killed 19 pedestrians while cars killed 3200 pedestrians. Over 168 pedestrians killed by a car for each killed by a bicycle. I know there are plenty of irresponsible cyclists, and yet they are still a tiny fraction as dangerous as a driver.

I feel like you’re taking a very specific interpretation of the word “expect”. I don’t believe most people would interpret “expect” as being the outcome of crunching the numbers, so I still disagree that the headline is misleading. Still, I appreciate your explanation of your thinking.

The headline is extremely misleading clickbait. This piece is reporting on what people think they need, not what they actually need

The title says “Canadians expect they need $1.7M to retire”. The title says exactly what the article says, and incorrectly claiming it to be misleading diminishes the conversation here.

And here I was thinking of https://xkcd.com/664/