The problem is that by specifying this, you have tipped your hand that there is something strange about the plan to walk. I think this is the original problem too: the question implies walking is even an option.

Walking is an option for certain interpretations of the question. Particularly the location of the car, which is ambiguous.

I agree, it's a bit of a trick question. It's really hard to imply the car's location without ruining the test though. Here's my attempt, which Claude Opus 4.6 had no problem with:

Alice drives home after a long day at work, exhausted she pulls into her driveway when she realizes she needs to go to a car inspection appointment. She goes into the house to get her paperwork before she leaves. The mechanic is only 100 meters away. How should she get there, walk or drive?

> She should *drive*, since she needs the car at the mechanic’s for the inspection.

Haiku 3.5 and Sonnet 4.5 fail consistently. Opus 4.5 also passes with the correct analysis as above.

Oh man imagine if NeoVim had been TypeScript. I would've switched then.

neovim does have some support for nodejs plugins through its providers https://neovim.io/doc/user/provider.html#_node.js-integratio...

well the lua setup has enough type checker going on that’s it’s really useful, besides language familiarity i honestly don’t miss much; there’s great docs and autocomplete for the lua stuff built in to the lazynvim distro.

The woman herself says she never had a problem with it being famous. The actual test image is obviously not porn, either. But anything to look progressive, I guess.

From the link above

> Forsén stated in the 2019 documentary film Losing Lena, "I retired from modeling a long time ago. It's time I retired from tech, too... Let's commit to losing me."

It's a ridiculous idea that once you retire all depictions must be destroyed.

Should we destroy all movies with retired actors? All the old portraits, etc.

It's such a deep disrespect to human culture.

That's of course not the meaning of that message. No one is suggesting that.

Meanwhile, having children is more difficult than ever. Preschools are asking parents for their attested work schedules, just so they don't sneak an hour of leeway between work and picking up kids... What a bait and switch that was, fool everyone that society will provide, nobody has to stay at home, then inch by inch, little by little, take those things away. Let the rich have their tax breaks though, lest they leave for another social democratic paradise.

Sorry, it's tough seeing this play out in real time.

It think anyone with any experience of it will agree that Swedish bureaucracy and policy making is, generously put, as misguided as it is bumbling, but whatever the cause of the declining birth rates is, any explanatory model also needs to account for why it is also happening in South Korea and Japan, along with the nordics and a bunch of other places.

I doubt young adults in in Seoul are skipping kids because of Swedish preschool policies.

This is left lane driving policy. I am like this, and I was not at first. What makes you drive like this is rush hour traffic. "Move up the lane or move out of the lane" is the sentiment, basically. As others have noted, it is essentially an adversarial process. If you drive nice, people cut in front and you're unable to drive nice to both those behind you and in front.

I don’t think what you’re describing is quite the same thing.

At least I hope not.

More concrete example:

He will be going 65 mph in slow lane. Come up on a car. (Left lane empty). Slam on his brakes. Follow them at 50 mph for 1-3 minutes <1 car length.

Pass, flooring it, if he stays in the left lane he’ll keep going until he now tail gates a car in front of him- usually with large speed variances.

The amount of traffic on the road doesn’t matter. It can be 3 cars and he will drive this way.

I’m not talking about trying to drive through major city rush hour traffic.

Letting them "cut in front" is good driving.

If you have to keep significantly slowing down to get the gap back, that's perfectly nice to the people in front of you but it's not nice to the people behind you.

Not to be dismissive, but the "agents discussing how to get E2E encryption" is very obviously an echo of human conversations. You are not watching an AI speak to another.

Very obviously, but a dynamic system doesn’t have to be intelligent to be dangerous.

That is not what this was. You have been firing your fireplace, now you put on a sweater and you suddenly don't want to fire so much. Maybe that's not bad, but a return to normal. That was the proposition. Is it true, who knows. Case by case question.

That's the point, killing an inexistent libido is a no-op

Ah, thanks for explaining!

-4 makes sense if you understand that the input -2 is a unary minus operation. So typing -2 then hitting square only squares 2, not (-2). This is the same in eg Python so I'm not sure it's very controversial. I agree it's unexpected, though.

At no point in the current expression you wrote "-", though. It may make sense that if you type [-] [2] [x^2] [=] then you get -(2²) = -4, but if your current answer is already -2, then tapping x² should result in (ans)^2 = (-2)^2 = 4. Splitting your current answer into a separate unary [-] as in - (2²) makes absolutely no sense.

Most calculators, even CAS ones, simply get this always right. But sadly this is not the first "desktop" calculator that I see getting this completely wrong. And it makes some results outright wrong!

"-4 makes sense if you consider that the calculator is so damn stupid it ignores every convention every single calculator has made in the past hundred years and instead copies behavior of a dumbass language" isn't exactly the praise you think it is.

I didn't enter -2, I calculated -2. The x² should have been taking x = (-2).

Python gets it right:

    >>> 2-4
    -2
    >>> _**2
    4

What? The person you're replying to isn't typing -2. He said explicitly what he is typing, and the result is unambiguously incorrect.