You could say “A static analysis tool is testing for the for the presence of defects” or “a medical test is testing if your body is free of diseases that it can detect” to change how you’re looking at either of the tests in the previous comment.
You could say “A static analysis tool is testing for the for the presence of defects” or “a medical test is testing if your body is free of diseases that it can detect” to change how you’re looking at either of the tests in the previous comment.
At this point, I’m not sure if I should interpret that as “very recyclable” or “barely recyclable”.
Who is this clown?
Okay, which instances should I block to get rid of the tankies?
I lick it clean before putting it in the fridge.
^^/s
Duolingo taught me “wilkommen” for “welcome.” Is that used IRL?
Todoist works great for me. I like the recurring tasks feature which lets me clear up a lot of headspace. “Clean XYZ every 11 days #chore” is all the syntax you need to setup a recurring task that’s categorised under the “chore” category.
Have you tried diluting your cycle with some water or turpentine to reduce its viscosity?
Somebody who isn’t a pedant would interpret that as “All trained surgeons performing this procedure on their respective patients with the same condition would be fine. So me, a trained surgeon, performing this procedure is also fine.”
The trilogy of songs by The Lonely Island ft. Justin Timberlake.
ELI5 of certificates:
The “s” in “https” in urls like “https://wikipedia.com” stands for “Secure”.
When you connect to Wikipedia’s computer to read something, how do you know if the content you get back is what they actually sent and wasn’t altered by your friendly neighborhood hacker?
Wikipedia can “sign” the content before sending it you. They also give you a certificate telling you how they have a particular signature which has been verified by someone else whom you already trust, and how long this particular signature is valid for.
If a hacker tries to alter the document returned by Wikipedia, they wouldn’t be able to sign the document correctly. If they tried to give a certificate with a different signature too, you would catch it because they wouldn’t be able to fake the verification of the “someone you trust” so you’d catch the fake certificate.
Browsers handle all this stuff for us. If it detects something fishy, it’ll just show an error along the lines of “could not verify certificate”. In some cases, it’s genuinely an issue where you/the website is under attack and you may get a virus.
In some other cases though, it’s an issue of the certificate expiring and the guys at Wikipedia not being proactive about getting a new signature and certificate. If you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that you’re just dealing with a lazy developer and not a malicious hacker, you can tell your browser to ignore whatever issue it detected and show you the content that was returned by Wikipedia.
Thanks for attending my TEDx talk.
ಕನ್ನಡ (Kannada): ಶಂಖದಿಂದ ಬಂದ್ರೇನೇ ತೀರ್ಥ - shankadinda bandrene teertha.
Literally: it’s holy water only if it comes from a conch.
Meaning: people are only going to take things seriously if a specific person says it.
Example scenario: you tell a friend that a cab to go somewhere costs X amount, but they don’t believe you and check with a different friend and then accept that it’s going to cost them X.
You’d then say this idiom to tease them since you gave them the same water (information) but it wasn’t holy water since you weren’t a conch (someone they trust/have faith in).
It’s not as bad as Google yet, but I find myself getting terrible or no results quite a few times.
Ex: if I’m looking for a niche blog post from example.com, just entering the keywords doesn’t return the right result, if anything at all. I have to add “site:example.com” and the right link shows up on top.
It’s kinda amusing when this happens, but I keep using ddg anyway because bing and Google had the same issue for the same keywords when I ran into the issue.
This guy S_20xxxxxxx has a holier than thou comment ranting about the “assholes from reddit being pieces of shit on lemmy”, ironically, on a thread about people being aggressive on lemmy.
A few hours later, he replies to some comments of mine - every single one of them makes him sound more unhinged than the last.
I went through his comment history and his comments swing between these two extremes of being preachy and being unhinged. I decided that blocking him and moving on was better for my sanity than continuing to engage.
There’s no point in engaging with such people, do what’s best for you, and move on. Cheers! :)
Are you completely incapable of communicating without resorting to personal attacks?
Do you know how many scams happen because it’s ridiculously easy for anyone to edit the “knowledge” panel? I’d rather click an extra button and get the real number from the business’ own website than trust whatever is on Google.
“You’re not this obtuse are you?” – uncalled for, but, I guess you are who you are. So, you do you, buddy.
…and the website should have all that information, right?
What did namecheap do? I’ve got a bunch of domains with them. 🤦♂️
Is it a positive to have pathogens that cause dengue/malaria in your blood? Yet we still say that someone tested positive for dengue if they have the virus.
Static analysis tools don’t test for all known issues either, no?
It’s all just semantics dude. :)