People nowadays forget how shitty software used to be at launch.

Or so I’m told. I’m not actually of the generation that remembers software without an auto-updater.

To nitpick for nitpicking’s sake: You can make Ctrl+Click work in JS.

Filling the hearts of lemmings around the world with joy?

I gave my traces so others can check them and correct me if I’m wrong. And also to spread the word about the resources I’ve used.

I can’t edit my other comment, so I’ll put this here:

The source mentions the town Sion and the mountain Bietschhorn. Here they are on OpenStreetMap. So I guess the image is taken in an Eastern, maybe East-Northeastern direction.

The JPEG’s EXIF data say the image was recorded at 2026-04-09T04:26 (at least one of the timestamps says that. I’m taking this because the source also mentions the comet being visible just before sunrise).

According to shademap.app, the Sun rose between 7:00 and 9:00 (depending on your exact position in Sion—the terrain is mountainous). Since the mountains in the image are already getting sunlight, I think the EXIF timestamp is actually in UTC, which puts it at 06:26 local time.

Heading to Stellarium Web with that information I found that the Pegasus square is located between 70° and 90° (that is, East-Northeast to due East) and 10°–30° above the horizon. Eyeballing the image that is about the rectascension where the comet is visible.

So If you’re looking for the comet, search the Pegasus square and below about an hour before sunrise.

Edit: I just remembered that Google exists. Here’s the current position.

I wish either the source or Wikipedia had details on where to look for this comet in the sky.

The madman theory is a political theory commonly associated with the foreign policy of U.S. president Richard Nixon and his administration, who tried to make the leaders of hostile communist bloc countries think Nixon was irrational and volatile so that they would avoid provoking the U.S. in fear of an unpredictable response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

I took this introductory passage to be the current tradition. The quoted bible passage makes it look like more of a mandatory thing:

[5] If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child […]; her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.

[7] And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say: ‘My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto me.’

[9] then shall his brother’s wife […] loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and […] say: ‘So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother’s house.’

Deuteronomy 25 (Modern English)

What was particularly binary about the old mascot?

This seems to me a bit outside your usual family obligations

It was actually the law to do that, IIRC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibbum

Just because there were no Catholics, that doesn’t mean that people weren’t violating some divine law (people also call it “natural law”). And unless you have a very specific meaning of “sin” in mind, there were absolutely “things you shouldn’t do or God will be angry”. Religion didn’t start with Jesus.

Free Speech, baybeee.

And yes, spending money counts as speaking.

I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with facts!

They’re ’Muricans. You gotta give them some slack. Thinking doesn’t come naturally to them.

I don’t know who is password, or why is password, or when is password, but I do know where is password, and it’s out there!

Jesus, Buddah, Spongebob! I don’t have time to be picky!

Testurteil: „Befriedigend”

A little joke for the Germans.

To save people a click: ISO is 51200 (in layman’s terms: holy shit it goes this high?) and they still exposed for 1/4s (somewhat normal for low-light photography) at an aperture of f/2.8 (gaping hole).

Suppose the average person p₀ has n acquaintances. Then a naive approach would say that each of p₀’s acquaintances (call one of them p₁) also has n acquaintances, leading p₀ with n² acquaintances of the second degree.

However, in a social network, many of p₁’s acquaintances are shared between p₀ and p₁. Let’s say that r⋅n (1/n≤r≤1) of p₁’s acquaintances are actually first-order acquaintances of p₀. The lower limit for r is 1/n because naturally one of p₁’s acquaintances is p₀ themselves.

This gives us n⋅(1−p)⋅n = n²⋅(1−p) as the number of second-degree acquaintances, if my math is mathing. Increase n for more extraverted people in the network, and increase p for more closely-knit networks.

To model the headline X % know someone who knows, we solve 1 / [n²⋅(1−p)] ≥ x where x is X% expressed as a fraction. Plugging in n=100 and p = 1/10 (I pulled these numbers out of my ass) and X=20% we get 1 / [100² ⋅ (1−.1))] = 1 / [ 10^4 ⋅ 0.9 ] = 1 / 900; again, if my math is mathing.

So this headline is true if about 1 in 900 people are in a relationship with AI.

No stars! They haven’t learned from their stupid mistake from 60 years ago! /s