I know this is mostly for fun, but it would be great to see how we are trending on the predications which has more scientific approach to it.

...remember it only takes one to be right!

We do have this dashboard https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2

I never took CBD oil for any physical pain, so im just asking out of curiosity: Does CBD oil not act like pain killer for any immediate relief? I always thought it acts like local analgesic, is that not the case?

The article makes CBD oil sounds almost like a snake oil

Contractually, developers are still required to pay 27% commission to Apple (or 12% for the small business programme). i.e. Apple are only removing a 3% payment processing fee here.

They say it'll be hard to actually audit this, and it will, and many developers may manage to get around it, but technically that's a breach of contract and they could be removed from the store for it, so I'm sure many won't risk it.

What about sketchy apps with subscriptions, are those still managed via Apple? As an end user, I like the fact I can just cancel through Apple instead of having to find my way around a 3rd party site that is trying its best to prevent me from unsubscribing.

This change means that users could go and subscribe externally, including to scam subscriptions, and you would no longer be able to cancel via Apple. That's probably part of the motivation for why they don't want to implement this sort of thing.

That’s been one of their arguments against it. You’re right. And honestly they’re not wrong.

It wouldn’t surprise me if using a non-Apple payment system quickly became a very good way to figure out if you were about to get scammed by a random third party.

If it’s a company that I already know and trust, I might be willing (though Apple payments will still be more convenient).

Rando company? No way. Honestly this whole thing is probably going to prove their point. Even if they don’t exactly deserve the win.

They didn’t cave. A court gave them no choice.

How did Larry Summers get elected? Does he have any relation with AI research or Sam Altman?

It’s also curious that none of the board members have necessarily have any experience directly with AI research

Not sure "elected" is the right way of looking at it. More like "selected" or "nominated" by Sam/MSFT perhaps. His main qualification may be that he's an adult?

I have same issue with ChatGPT. Since it hasn't indexed anything post Sept 2021, I keep getting this message,

> As of my last update in September 2021, Next.js 13.0 has not been released yet. However, I can provide you an example of implementing authentication using the Next.js app router approach based on the information available at that time. Keep in mind that the actual implementation may differ in later versions of Next.js.

Does Phind do something special to get around this?

Yes, Phind is connected to the internet and can do web searches to get up-to-date information. For example, here's me asking about what's new in nextjs 13: https://www.phind.com/agent?cache=cll15y99k002fjo08ijfbedeo

That’s pretty neat, but can it answer with code suggestions with nextjs 13?

It didn’t work for me - https://www.phind.com/agent?cache=cll1y7pwf005vmh08j2zfyead

is this as viewed from the earth? or as the moon placed next to the stars?

As viewed from the earth. This is how big the nebula is in the night sky.

The second photo contextualizes it better as it’s a single photograph.

There are always at least two parties involved in a war, an aggressor and a defendant. 'War is a Racket' is always true or war unjustified in case of the aggressor. Defendant usually doesn't have much choice in it.

Even the example you've taken for WWII, UK and US weren't the aggressor. The war already at their door for British, so they had a little choice in it. Similarly for US they knew, if they don't do something early enough, they could end up being a victim or suffer from it eventually. So they had to support Britain in the war.

> There are always at least two parties involved in a war, an aggressor and a defendant.

There are many wars where multiple sides are belligerent. There are wars where a side manages to profit or benefit from a conflict without appearing as a belligerent. And there are wars where it's not clear who the beligerent is.

In the French Revolutionary wars, France appears as the aggressor, as they declared war first. But they declared war as a pre-emptive to gain advantage in a conflict with Austria over Bourbon restoration that they felt sure would come. And judging by contemporary history (the partitions of Poland, the Hungarian rebellion, the Revolutions of 1848, etc), they were probably right.

There is the Franco-Prussian war, a war which was essentially desired by both sides.

Most civil wars rarely have a clear beligerent side with slow escalation of violence by multiple parties.

We are deep into the era of nationalistic propaganda so we are used to conceiving of wars as clear conflicts between two cohesive political units: one the aggressor and one the defender. But that is a concpetion mostly born out of our experiences in the 20th century and even then it is highly biased by the popular narrative of WWII.

Honest question: why dont modern cars come with similar functionality as AirTags or 'Find my phone'?

not exactly what you asked, but something close - https://sharegpt.com/

Thanks for sharing about your project!

Do you mind giving us brief on what kind of data you are collecting and highlight any interesting findings so far?