The “nefarious” dividing line is often hard to assess. For a better-known example, it’s interesting just how many times Google has done things like degrading their stuff on Firefox by user-agent string detection, and then been all apologetic about it, it was a mistake, &c. Malice and incompetence can be indistinguishable.

I’m not sure what you mean by “anti-AI sentiment” here, because what I would interpret that as (and generally agree with myself) would answer the title question “What do you want from AI?” with “for it to all be agreed a bad idea, deleted, and made illegal”.

Now if only DC wiring and appliances were more common/mature, could possibly drop the “inverter” part altogether. If I were single I’d try more seriously for a full-DC system, but as a married man I’ll probably just stick with everything AC.

I haven’t known any Lithium-ion batteries yet, so I have no personal figures on them. But what I’ve heard is generally more like “they said 8–10 years but it’s still fine after 12”.

Not just emoji, icons in general, in both website generation and image generation.

Rudimentary experiment on https://github.githubassets.com/assets/te.1288ac5c9584fbf2.m... on replacing /(?[A-Za-z0-9_-]+)__(?[A-Za-z0-9_-]+)__(?[A-Za-z0-9_]{5})\b/:

${module}__${local}__${hash} (original): 72967 raw, 10993 br.

${module}__${local}: 68459 raw, 8867 br.

${hash}: 48754 raw, 8189 br.

${local}: 52610 raw, 7927 br. (Now in practice a few of these are likely to need disambiguation, so it’s probably a tad smaller than realistic.)

Frankly I think ${local} is the right target, with global disambiguation where necessary. For typical systems, I consider the hash approach to be foolish: its value is when interacting with unknown other styles, but when you’re compiling everything you should know everything, so you can disambiguate more selectively and succinctly/compressibly, as JS build tools like Rollup do (in flattening modules with colliding names, you’ll get Foo, Foo$1, Foo$2, &c.).

Yes, but as written the latter would not be a reasonable parse. For that sense: “you have failed them”, sure; “you are failing them”, sure; even “in acting so, you fail them”; but “and then you fail them” as an entire sentence would be very weird. The emphasis I placed on “fail” also doesn’t feel particularly compatible with that sense of the word.

But… ouch. From https://itsfoss.com/remap-copilot-key-linux/ and other sources, sounds like the Copilot button is LMeta+LShift+F23. Why a combo when using an esoteric key not on anyone’s keyboard anyway? Ugh. That’ll make it harder to sort out, though still possible.

It’s not uncertainty about the motives; those and the end state are clear. It’s just the details of how we get there (“God’s plan”) that aren’t clear.