It explains what it does, it does not confirm that it is what was intended.

The user is always right about what they are willing to spend money on. That doesn’t mean they know what they want, although a lot of people don’t want to change.

That doesn’t mean all change is good, and it isn’t like any UI will ever meet everyone’s preferences. For example, I hate adaptive design interfaces that are significantly different in confusing ways on different resolutions. Like I understand switching a static menu to an expandable menu, but not moving the relative location of certain buttons from the bottom of the screen to the top or vise versa. But that might make sense for some use case that isn’t how I interact with it.

Overthrowing democracy was an offical act. - SCOTUS

Like early Netflix before they all decided they would make their own shitty streaming services and didn’t renew contracts.

Huh, my first thought was that they went to the farm upstate where everyone’s pets end up.

Say it ain’t so!

Note they left the “…and improved” off the (New) title.

Clicked “Continue without disabling”?

Yes, yes I have.

Like the startups that ‘disrupt’ the established system by ignoring laws and breaking the parts that worked and selling it like an improvement.

‘Ride sharing’ (unregulated cabs) was only cheaper because of investor funding allowing them to undercut on pricing, abusing the concept of contract workers, and the companies ignoring laws. That isn’t ‘disruptive’ by being innovative, that is cheating the system.

Like all sayings, there is context for moving fast and breaking things.

The saying means that when creating something new for profit, don’t worry too much about trying to figure out all the details beforehand and figure it out as you go. This will inevitably cause things to break, but being able to quickly fix that when it happens is the same skills needed to create new features as you go.

The saying does not work with large and complex established systems where breaking things wreak havoc.

Then some hackers get in and reprogram the AI CEOs to value long term profit and employee training and productivity. The company grows and is massively profitable until some venture capitalists swoop in and kill the company to feed from the carcass.

Tech CEOs or AI?

Just kidding, I know it is both.

That is backwards.

Office Space was based on real life corporate America.

I am fine with felons in general being elected, although if their crimes are abusive of their office, campaign finance related. or undermine democracy then they shouldnl not be eligible.

So Snoop Dogg should be able to be elected, but Trump and Rod Blagojevich should not be able to hold office.

They still sell the square cut rolls though. This lets the buyer know it is the narrower cut.

No, then he will have been pardoned and no longer a felon (assuming every felony is pardoned)

Sometimes people are happy that a criminal who commits crimes gets found guilty of something even if they aren’t sure about the one they go down for. Or they just tilhink the system worked and he can always appeal.

I’m sure there are also a chunk of people in that poll that think he is guilty but also don’t approve of the verdict because they think these charges are petty.

Some disinformation troll is conflating convict (as in the act of convicting) with the common usage of convict (someone currrently serving their sentence) and a bunch of people are falling for it.

My guess is once that is finally put to rest my guess is the next one will be claiming he isn’t really convicted until he exhausts all his appeals or some other magical fairy tale.

He is and always will be a convicted felon from the moment is is convicted unless he is pardoned.

He will only be a convict whle is is serving his sentence.

If he lives long enough to finish his sentence he won’t be a convict anymore, but will still be a convicted felon.

Dunking on other projects.