So even if it would’ve been called “Moore’s thingamabob”, it was never really intended as a real theory? It was only like, tongue-in-cheek the whole time?

Kind of rude? It feels like it’s close, no?

Could you explain in detail why it isn’t? Because from what I see:

1. The curve was accurate for some time, but innovation doesn’t really follow mathematical formulas, so the thesis would seem preposterous in hindsight, to me anyway.
2. The appeal to tradition fallacy seems to be defined as just that? — Just because it’s been like that for some time doesn’t really necessarily mean it’s true. Right?

Why is this lack of reading comprehension? Please explain, if you would. Thank you kindly.

Diabetes? #NotADoctor

Absolute terror state

Who brings proof of citizenship anywhere? I don’t even think my driver’s licence works for that purpose.

Not in your code perhaps, which is a good thing 👍

But if the element itself already had an inline opacity value, that would be lost. 🙂

How it should be.

It did kind of give that alpha stage vibe, but if it was like a few bucks, it probably buy it. It was a remake after all, with slightly better graphics.

True

You’re right, the AI stole it indirectly. But you know what I mean. :⁠-⁠P

AI coders be like

I thank you for your service

This is my hope. I got kids, man. This has to be the outcome.

Subscribed! ty

It’s a prescription drug where I live, but if I ever have anyone who would need to hear it, I’ll mention it in case their doctor didn’t prescribe it!

Awesome 🙌

Sounds unhealthy, you okay?

BoJack Horseman

If you managed to fill out the form, you don’t have ADHD. 🙃