Can I solve it by searching? Yes. Is it faster for the author to type it out once or for the reading public to have to search it up? I don't think that time matches up even if the # of people is "me", but it certainly isn't less time than it takes 2 people to search.

I feel like I am asking for the bare minimum and everyone on this sight thinks I am asking for the moon.

This is such entry-level communication/writing skills I am surprised the ai doesn't do it for you...

Obligatory https://xkcd.com/169/

Cannot stress enough, this is like, basic communication/writing that they teach in elementary school.

But I'm so happy you're able to get off on your feelings of superiority that you always automatically know what those two letters stand for. I hope that translates to meaningful happiness and fulfillment in your life.

"Continuous Integration (CI)"

in the first line of a paragraph of a long article is "going out of your way". It used to be the standard expectation for using shorthand.

(Continuous Integration, and Continuous Deployment, are fine if someone tells me what the letters literally stand for, but sorry for not being so tech-brained that I haven't memorized every possible TLA that's ever been used in tech).

Really appreciate getting downvoted to hell for saying "We can't throw readers a simple bone?"

All I'm asking for is CI(Continuous Integration) in the first paragraph.

AI is in the cultural zeitgeist, but you gotta expand most other things at least once.

You could say "I used AI to cure cancer." This isn't a counter example, because there's no evidence for it.

If you want to be a part of my community, you need to obviously be giving at least as much as you take. And none of this can be theoretical in terms of what you're offering. Theoretical == non-existent.

That's a pretty far cry from the "evidence" you claim to have dropped on multiple comments.

My follow-up question is "What percentage of the 'totally independent' group, are parents with adult children?"

i.e. there's almost an interesting statistic here about what percentage of adults have "no option" in relying on their parents for financial help, and what percentage of the remainder still do rely on their parents.

But once I had this question, I realized that I needed to be suspicious of the % itself.

If I show you a picture of yourself that is a perfect likeness of yourself, And do not tell you how it was collected/created.

Is that an image of you?

It looks exactly like you, and you have found yourself in a similar or same situation at some point (what do you know your memory is human).

You're saying you can't say one way or another whether or not that is a picture of you without knowing where it came from, but I'm saying it doesn't matter where it came from, it is your exact likeness, it is a picture of you.

Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself is relevant to the fact that it's a naked image of _me_ and I don't have ownership over my own image is exactly the kind of lawyer-brained wording I was referring to when I made the comment about the mirror. "It's not a picture of you, it's a picture of a reflection of you."

"You see, your honor, it's not a picture of them, it's a picture of their reflection in the mirror."

I feel like this discussion is a question of what the exact structure of the hydrogen-filled blimp should look like, and not a discussion of the fact that THE BLIMP IS FILLED WITH HYDROGEN.

Like we got so deep into the lawyered-definition of words, that we skipped right over the clearly wrong/awful intent.

The giveaway was my Medical Professional father thinking that AI was really good at things outside of his area of expertise, and really bad at things inside of his area of expertise.