The real lesson here is that almost all modern SaaS applications have massively under invested in customer support in order to appear more profitable or sustainable than they really are. One of the major factors behind LLM development is trying to solve this problem before the house of cards falls down. Companies were enticed by the recurring revenue of SaaS, but don't want to pay for the level of support required when you are responsible for all your customers data as well as their access to the service.
I am actually not sure that this is an example of bias, at least not in the direction that you seem to be implying. Though I appreciate your strong connection to the subject, the purpose of the Wikipedia page for a topic is not to advocate, but to describe. I don't think it is very controversial to say that the term "feminism" has a more widespread common understanding than the term "men's rights." I empathize with the desire to have a place to put information about issues that affect men, and also with the frustration at being told that the correct place to put that information is under the heading of feminism. But I do not think it is unreasonable for the Wikipedia page on "men's rights" to discuss the various ways people use and understand the term, the history of its use, and criticisms.
I wouldn’t patronize the GP. They described a double standard which can’t be dismissed by therapy talk / an appeal to the mainstream.
Rather, there’s a real political legitimacy behind their frustration as the election has demonstrated.
The GP's experience ought to be documented carefully and posted in a blog for others to learn from.
I think that framing this as hopeless, and perpetuating the idea the government cannot operate efficiently, is a part of the problem. If a system is created to provide a service, it makes sense that said system would consider its existence instrumental to meeting that goal. This could be a positive motivator to provide the service efficiently and effectively. There are many reasons that it often does not work out that way, but one is public perception that government is supposed to be slow and inefficient.
The phrase does not mean that you can pick any single effect of a system and claim that is its purpose, as your linked article does in its examples. (Ironically, a form of reducto as absurdum.) It is a heuristic, a pattern of thought to attempt to overcome the bias towards judging systems based on the intentions behind them instead of the outcomes they produce. The point is that when you choose a course of action, you are implicitly choosing its negative effects as well, and the choice should be judged on all its effects. You are making a cost / benefit analysis, and if that is not explicit, it can easily be wrong.
Twice I have had listings for companies or organizations I was associated with get phone numbers added to their listings in Google Maps automatically. In both cases, it was worse than this: the numbers were people in the same industry, but completely unrelated. One was bemused, the other was quite angry with me.
Numbers of cases, deaths, and how those numbers are tabulated are factual data. We can argue over the data quality, but at this point we have data from many independent countries' health services. Our view of these facts has gotten better with time, and we now have more certainty than we did in the early days of the pandemic.
Recommendations, regulations, and responses to the pandemic as it happened are factual in the sense that they happened, but are not "facts" in the same way. It is not a fact that standing in a restaurant without a mask was terrorism and sitting was fine. Instead, given the information available at the time, and the practical requirement to have your mask off to eat, this policy was chosen for a time as a risk mitigation balanced with practical requirements. The appropriateness of this policy is a matter of opinion.
You are of course correct that fact checking is not sufficient to protect us from all the ways that a journalistic work could mislead. But it does help when they are based on lies. As in the article this discussion is happening under. It helps address that problem, specifically. It seems like a strange reaction to say that this example of a lie being uncovered makes you less trustful of fact checking.
In addition to that, I am not sure if you have ever worked with an independent fact checker, but they very much do make an effort to point out misleading, cherry-picked, and out of context information.
I mostly don't use Numbers for very much because it's not easy to share and collaborate. Everyone has Excel. Everyone has Sheets. That said, I routinely use it as a first step in converting CSV and other text based delimited data. Open or paste into Numbers and it almost always does a perfect job of determining columns when Sheets and Excel choke.
Because - and _ break text selection in existing systems you do not have control over, if you use those characters your ids will become harder to select.
Someone already made this point, and once again, "break" is completely undefined. It is not at all impossible or even difficult to select text with - or _, so what's "broken" exactly? At worst it takes one extra step to extend the default selection. These are such weird objections.
I work across multiple machines with different pointing devices (regular mouse, vertical mouse, touchpad), and have no issues double clicking to select a word. Dragging from the start of a word to the end can sometimes take multiple tries. I may miss the first letter. I may drag too far. The vertical mouse isn't great at holding a selection. It's not a huge deal, but it's an annoyance that I don't run into working with Stripe IDs.
