There's more lead allowed in a liter of drinking water in the US than a serving of any of the chocolates being reported, as far as I can find. (15 micrograms per liter.) Provided nobody's eating a few dozen bars of chocolate in a single sitting I can't imagine accumulating enough to cause acute harm from the chocolate alone. Chasing down Hershey, Nestle et al to hold them accountable is great, but in terms of toxic metals we'd have more success and greater impact lighting up the news about water supplies.

Just mildly frustrated that I continue to see talk about chocolate while drinking water is a necessity and consumed in greater amounts daily but rarely gets reported outside of extreme cases like Flint.

Zero percent and govt covers operating costs with a stipend per loan. Granted figuring out the rate to pay would be a task, and keeping that from being a gouge itself... but better than passing it along to borrowers.

Depends on if it coincides with raises for working class staff, or there was enough transparency in operating costs and expenditures to be confident it's not just being done for additional profit margins. If the cost of serving video has actually gone up by $2 * subscription count every month, then no problem. I suspect that isn't the case, though.

Why is there never a button for just the tip?

The hard part of app development is identifying and translating all of the nuances of human desires and unanticipated needs into a working application. ChatGPT is on par with junior programmers - it can produce simple programs, help contribute to complex ones, but will struggle (for now) with the complexities of dealing with the major hurdles of software dev.

Eventually it will reach a point where it can reason about human needs and motivation autonomously (probably stacking multiple specialized LLMs or similar together for each area of reasoning, unless something new comes about) but we're a ways away from that yet.

I think the big disruption that ChatGPT will cause near-term is the same as that of generative AI art - the low specialization portion of labor will be replaced, eg stock photo producers and basic CRUD/site apps. For the rest, it will be a tool that gives those that adopt it alongside skill a serious leg up.

In ten years I think the conversation will be different, but two years to learn means 8 years of good salary and time to adapt to that future. Better than $15/hr* with no healthcare in rural US.

Vocalized support in favor of it and asked for it to be passed, so it seems. About as far as he can go until it's on his desk, so it's understandable to expect he would sign it if it does.

Keep calling it Twitter but add @Deprecated so future users know to avoid it?

Talk to a lawyer right away. This is screwed up and the lawyer may well take your case paid on contingency (eg, if and when you win a malpractice suit.)

Good luck. 4.5 hours is an eternity in the chair and the work sounds shoddy.

Disagree with this take in general (growth is worthwhile if only to shift communications platforms in general to open and federated protocols) but I don't think Lemmy is quite where we need it to be in order to sustain a migration. Finding a good instance is still tough, the idea of federation isn't easy to grasp for a new user yet, and the UX is still hammering out bugs. (Big thanks to all the devs that already work on Lemmy and all those that shifted over with the Reddit exodus for driving it to new heights so rapidly.)

An ideal migration from my perspective would have them find instances that cater to their interests and views and would allow easy defederation if undesired. Also, more control for the end user in what communities they see on their feeds when going through discovery (new/hot/etc feeds).

With better user controls for self moderation and better distribution of users across multiple instances I think we can have our cake and eat it too: growth towards a free world of communications without bogging us down by dealing with the folks/attitudes we find repugnant.

In the front, yes - but knowing how much your rear might be sticking out is another story. That's tough to judge with rear-view and side-view mirrors only.

Maybe it's different elsewhere but at least in the Midwest US we have a range of different length parking spots, from very short to long, so it's habit to pull as far forward as possible to ensure you aren't sticking out into the aisle.

The courteous folks hop back in and reposition if they're parked funky, but those types can be far and between.

You can tell how old this is - a baby's only worth 6 Big Macs anymore.

I'd speculate some combination of control over employees (poor management practices, etc) and making use of owned land/offices that are difficult to sell otherwise. Not much else makes sense to me, especially for tech companies where nearly the entire job exists in virtual space of some kind - no wrenches to turn.

Edit: Someone else suggested a way to "lay off" folks by having them voluntarily leave the job to avoid the return to office. That also sounds pretty plausible to me with the extent to which companies are starting to squeeze with what feels like an incoming recession period.