And more importantly, once the pool is warm enough (or in a very hot day), doesn't it lose its cooling efficiency?
Didn't Anthropic create a series of commercials poking fun at OpenAI for putting ads in their chat? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQRu7DdTTVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTT55qFdyss
I guess because the hash of an instance stays consistent (which is used to retrieve the value from the dict). The `__eq__` method must disregard the hash and return False for all nans.
> We immediately disclosed the issue to the Moltbook team, who secured it within hours with our assistance How do you go about telling a person who vibe-coded a project into existence how to fix their security flaws?
I hate that every single Execution Plan says has "AI-first" in it. Is this an ad?
I kinda like it, but if you come to think of it, that's just a misuse of `git add -A`. Nothing goes into a git repository unless you specifically add it, so why not just be more careful when adding files?
And more importantly, once the pool is warm enough (or in a very hot day), doesn't it lose its cooling efficiency?
Didn't Anthropic create a series of commercials poking fun at OpenAI for putting ads in their chat? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQRu7DdTTVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTT55qFdyss
I guess because the hash of an instance stays consistent (which is used to retrieve the value from the dict). The `__eq__` method must disregard the hash and return False for all nans.
> We immediately disclosed the issue to the Moltbook team, who secured it within hours with our assistance How do you go about telling a person who vibe-coded a project into existence how to fix their security flaws?
I hate that every single Execution Plan says has "AI-first" in it. Is this an ad?
I kinda like it, but if you come to think of it, that's just a misuse of `git add -A`. Nothing goes into a git repository unless you specifically add it, so why not just be more careful when adding files?