They… will not say that, because they get a large fine if you report them. Every store I've been too has been deeply apologetic when this has happened (a small handful of times in my entire life).
The giveaway is the handling of information and curiosity. You argue for throwing both away, and it's not clear why. When the author takes away more decimals than they should, the article becomes useless. When the author leaves in more decimals than they should, I round "with my eyes" to my desired precision. As a bonus, I can take their numbers and spot-check them easily.
The author put up a fun piece on a board game review website and summarized that the dice are fine. You ask what the threshold is, I say use your brain and eyes to pick one. We only need to read this once, not grade 200, so we don't need to invent an arbitrary cutoff.
If you treat students or coworkers in this way, I hope it is clear to them that you respect rubrics more than the actual "Ask a question, gather data, answer it in public" scientific process and that they do not mistake stodgy rules for must-follow procedures. It would be a shame to scare people off from rolling dice on the internet because someone may say there are too few p-values or too many decimal places.
HN is a place where people can be expected to go beyond the title (though I like the limited script and am glad it was posted). Misleading titles are not uncommonly flagged and changed, even.
I agree that a second issue doesn't erase the first, but also I've got enough work experience to know that a system which can be brought down by 1 person no matter the tooling they use is a system not destined to last for long.
Despite multiple comments blaming the AI agent, I think it's the backups that are the problem here, right? With backups, almost any destructive action can be rolled back, whether it's from a dumb robot, a mistaken junior, or a sleep-deprived senior. Without, you're sort of running the clock waiting for disaster.
It turns out that both phrases are used like this, similarly to how they teach in logic classes that "but" is just "and" in fancy clothing, but actual usage is quite different. Actually, a lot of language is just signpost phrasing that "helps the medicine go down" by giving hints at how the following idea will connect to this one.
---
Both phrases are used like this— let me explain:
Logic classes teach that "but" is just "and" in fancy clothing, and actual usage is quite different. A lot of language is signpost phrasing that "helps the medicine go down" by giving hints at how the following idea will connect to this one.
The THIRD sentence in the article explains that they ship to the US. You are tone-policing your hallucinated version of the article!
> Enter Navjot Sawhney, who founded the UK-based social enterprise The Washing Machine Project (TWMP) to tackle this, and has now shipped almost 500 of his hand-crank Divya machines to 13 countries, including Mexico, Ghana, Iraq *and the US.*
Yes, it matters, and big companies can do fantastic things by designing extremely expansive fonts which make it easy to include users speaking plenty of languages that we developers don't even know about.
When you say that it would "almost be like a punishment for Linux users", I think you're wrong, because it literally would be a value add. There is something interesting about the fact that offering you 10% more value would be taken as a downgrade
I tried to look for this research, and am referring to what I found. If there's more, I'll be wrong below.
Why do so many commenters here throw away the many many Dunbar's number studies in favor of what appears to be one clump of new research? What do Graber and Wengrow have that convinces you everyone except for them is making some error?