The account’s discovery raises questions on just how many bots are operating on X

I have yet to encounter an actual user of the platform X in the real world.

I mean, yeah, exactly. Keep in mind scammers are targeting vulnerable people. Granted I don’t see how such a feature will work on my grandmother’s flip phone.

It might be a good feature for the elderly as long as it’s local and optionally enabled (especially if it can be enabled only for unknown callers).

Yes, I understand you would never really know if it’s not always enabled. But then again, you currently don’t know if anything similar isn’t already enabled.

For other users, again potentially useful if it’s opt in. However, many people (myself included) simply don’t answer the phone anymore unless it’s a caller we already know. I use Google’s call screening feature for any other caller not in my contact list already, and I would estimate about 1 in 20 or 5% of such calls I receive aren’t spam (marketing or fraud). Of those non-spam calls, the majority are appointment reminders I don’t need.

So would I turn this feature on? No, I don’t have a need. Could it be beneficial for the elderly? Yes, but probably not implemented in a way where it would actually be effective.

Would anything have prevented an increase in rates? I’d bet if everyone got out of line, the rate increases would have been the same or higher. The only difference would be no one received $100.

Open fridge, find bag of sweet peppers, poke paperclip into pepper, return to fridge.

I haven’t pumped gas in 3 years and it’s glorious.

Sure, I agree.

Unfortunately, no such solution currently exists or has been widely adopted.

I use an app called Recipe Keeper. It’s amazing because I just share the page to the app, it extracts the recipe without any nonsense, and now I have a copy for later if I want to reuse it. I literally never bother scrolling recipe pages because of how terrible they all are, and I decide in the app if the recipe is one I want to keep.

It also bypasses paywalls and registration requirements for many sites because the recipe data is still on the page for crawlers even if it’s not rendered for a normal visitor.

You’re in the wrong Rochester!

The distinction is web workers and offline mode.

It means your PWA can preload everything it needs to run offline, and you can actually use it offline. That is different from a “cached website” which can only cache the pages you’ve already visited and otherwise does not allow you to update data locally.

Yes, although that recently changed in the EU (only) with the Digital Markets Act.

deleted by creator

Really interesting! I wonder what would happen if you combine these two properties. Suppose some length of the middle is all walls, and the hooks are infill, or vice versa. Is there an optimal mix that maximizes the weight it can support in your testing, or have you found the optimal configuration (with infill along the entire length) already?

This article has more detailed information on the surveys conducted. It seems to be about a third of US adults.

https://bigthink.com/the-present/was-trump-anointed-by-god/

Interestingly, while skewed heavily towards Republicans, some Democrats also hold this position and a much smaller percentage overall believe he was selected because of his policies.

I disagree. You should have validation at each layer, as it’s easier to handle bad inputs and errors the earlier they are caught.

It’s especially important in this case with email because often one or more of the following comes into play when you’re dealing with an email input:

• You’re doing more than sending an email (for ex, creating a record for a new user).
• The UI isn’t waiting for you to send that email (for ex, it’s handled through a queue or some other background process).
• The API call to send an email has a cost (both time and money).
• You have multiple email recipients (better hope that external API error tells you which one failed).

I’m not suggesting that validation of an email should attempt to be exhaustive, but a well thought-out implementation validates all user inputs. Even the underlying API in this example is validating the email you give it before trying to send an email through its own underlying API.

Passing obvious garbage inputs down is just bad practice.

Yes, but no. Pretty much every application that accepts an email address on a form is going to turn around and make an API call to send that email. Guess what that API is going to do when you send it a string for a recipient address without an @ sign? It’s going to refuse it with an error.

Therefore the correct amount of validation is that which satisfies whatever format the underlying API requires.

For example, AWS SES requires addresses in the form UserName@[SubDomain.]Domain.TopLevelDomain along with other caveats. If the application is using SES to send emails, I’m not going to allow an input that doesn’t meet those requirements.

Er

You can also mark designs as ready-only and they no longer count, so this limit is really 10 concurrently editable designs. I just keep everything read-only unless I’m actively working on it.

Honestly I don’t understand what’s wrong with the subscription model. You get YouTube ad free and YouTube music.

Download Bambu Studio and slice some multi material prints. The preview tells you how much filament will be purged. There are several settings and model characteristics that will affect the purged volume.

Flushing volume: this directly controls the volume purged while swapping between any two filaments. Darker to lighter colors will need a higher flushing volume. You’ll also need a higher flushing volume when changing materials.

Purge to infill: this reduces the purged volume by accounting for the volume that can be printed as infill before reaching perimeters. It’s not very effective for smaller models because there is just less infill area.

Printing multiple copies: this reduces the ratio of waste to printed parts, since for each layer you’ll need the same number of filament swaps.

Part orientation: often the part orientation will have a dramatic effect on the number of filament swaps. Imagine a blue cube with a red face. This can be optimized to one color swap if the red face is horizontal instead of vertical.

Print sequentially: For multiple parts on the plate, grouping them by color similarity and printing groups sequentially can reduce the number of swaps. Imagine two blue parts and two red parts on the same plate. This can be optimized to one color swap for the entire print instead of one swap per layer.

In my experience, the waste for average complexity multicolor prints is similar in scale to supports, and is easily offset if you’re upgrading from a less reliable printer. Failed prints are filament waste too.