Special Bulletin [1] is another good one.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_Warning_(1994_film)

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Bulletin&...

I can't find numbers from earlier than 1980, but 18-44 _is_ lower, though again the rate in 1980 was just a few percentage points higher, and not nearly high enough to imply that home ownership out of high school was in reach for the majority: https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig07.pdf

I've got a somewhat weekly 6 hour round-trip commute where it get a lot of use.

And a follow up: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/09/friendship-is-still-co...

Another good "sitcom-like" that you can find on YouTube is extr@. It's cheesy, but it's entertaining enough for what it is, and they have it for French, German, and Spanish (and English). Interestingly, it's the same main actor for French, German, and Spanish, a Dutch actor playing an American, while the rest of the cast changes around him.

No response for a week. So I emailed an email address that was included in the onboarding email.

No response for another week. So I sent their CEO a message on LinkedIn. Hey, I really want to buy, let's talk.

No response for another week (and four months later). So I gave up.

Love, love is going to lead you by the hand

Into a white and soundless place

Now we see things as in a mirror, dimly

Then we shall see each other face to face

> Well it's completely wasted time now that an LLM can search the whole vault and aggregate an answer across dozens of your notes.

I've actually found that having well-linked files _more_ important since I started pulling the vault into Cursor. The other day, for example, I was able to point to the page where I had aggregated links to all of my " Onboarding" notes and know that I was giving the right context when I asked it to help me brainstorm a six month plan. The alternatives were to instead put everything in a single note (not feasible), manually include each note as context (and hope I didn't forget one), or hope that Cursor found the right ones (unlikely).

From the article:

>First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act.

From the source (emphasis mine):

> On 18 March 2024, the Secretary of State was provided with a Submission which made it clear that Category 1 duties were not primarily aimed at pornographic content or the protection of children _(which were dealt with by other parts of the Act)_. Rather, the aim of Category 1 was to capture services that have a significant influence over public discourse. The submission offered, as a possible option, requesting information from Ofcom as to _how content recommender systems function on different types of service_.

The quote leaves out "which were dealt with by other parts of the Act" and the fact that the subject was specifically "Category 1 duties" not the Act in its entirety. It also doesn't mention that the subject was on content recommender systems.

_Again_ this is not a judgment on the Act itself, but providing the full context, which does change the message.

0: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v_Secret...