Somewhat same. Followed a girl I had a crush on to a local school. Met my wife during my last semester, and she’s been my best friend ever since.

And I never even dated the girl I had a crush on…

It could also be the language choice, which one are you utilizing? I could see some languages having a worse experience than others.

I’ve found it is exceptionally smart with bash. It often knows what to do better than I can, because I’m no master at bash. I’m proficient enough to know when it’s right though, and it’s usually pretty on point.

The first two reasons, to me, feel like excuses to hide the true reason(s) they cheat. I’d wager it varies per person but that many just want to be seen as cool or skilled by having everything or beating everyone. It seems equivalent to people who modify cars to be extremely loud; despite many saying the contrary, they’ve convinced themselves that people love to hear their loud cars go by.

It could also be the anonymous effect of online games. They don’t quite perceive themselves as cheating, really, because they don’t know the players and will never know them. It likely feels like NPCs in a video game, for the most part. If there were actually social pressure, like would be in a schoolyard game of football, then far fewer would be willing to risk the social ostracization. But because they are anonymous online, they feel safe and empowered to cheat.

Like most have already said, the auto complete is top tier while the chat is hallucination-riddled and not always useful. I find that if I’m asking Chat a question, my problem is already so complex that the AI struggles to answer it without the entire context of the application. It will give me unrelated answers, fake answers, or extremely basic ones that miss the broader context. It’s really a coin flip on whether it will help.

I have also had the autocorrect make a mistake once and that was extremely annoying. It was the type of mistake I would have made but took way longer to figure out because I trusted it too much

Blocked.

I’ve already made a Smeagol reference in this thread, but perhaps one more is in order…

Oh wow that’s actually a really good point!

Now prepare for it to be dismissed! People are too dug in at this point, there’s no going back. The trenches have been dug.

But what if I wants the whole bread, Precious

Dota players will pronounce “Abaddon” (a hero’s name) like “ah-buh-don” and it’s really bizarre. In their defense though, many aren’t native English speakers

That’s a sensitive topic

Oh this one really speaks to me. I feel the same way, probably to an unhealthy degree, honestly

Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus or Self Contained Oonderwater Breathing Apparatus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuba_diving)

That’s the problem with this debate, for every argument, the counter argument is just the same thing but a different example! The only argument that remains is “the creator said so” vs “so what he’s lame”

Get bent

Now, Bob, let’s keep it civil here

I have the opposite view, but I thought it would be too incendiary a topic to bring up…

I hope it’s a giraffe

Absolute nonsense

Technically, I wait until you’re done speaking to strike

Yeah the news of this non-recusal came too soon after the other recusal. Very confusing timeline if you didn’t know there were two cases

The mathematical proof is that Elon owns several hundred million Tesla shares and his holding or selling of those shares will impact the share price of the judge’s shares. Up or down, the price will be impacted, that’s just how markets work. If he is forced to sell those shares to fund X, the judge will be impacted.

Also, you shouldn’t really need an exact proof for the judge’s recusal. There is a chance he is impacted by the result of the case in a significant monetary way, so why not pass the case to a judge who doesn’t have these connections. This isn’t the last judge in Texas (just one of the most partisan) so there is far greater upsides to recusal than downsides.

Why risk the optics of impropriety when you don’t have to?

For anyone confused by this headline, there are two trials this judge is considering for X

[O’Conner] was overseeing two lawsuits filed by X and recused himself from only one of the cases.

This isn’t the new case about the “illegal boycott” O’Conner has recused himself from that trial (likely) because he also owns stock in Unilever, one of the defending companies