I mean, it’s dumb but I know what it is. It’s the painter for the internal frame’s title pane maximize button, which is in the internal frames title, which is in the internal frame.
It’s essentially a dumb way of writing: InternalFrame.Title.MaximizeButton.Painter
Assume it is not. If you’re asking an LLM for information you don’t understand, you’re going to have a bad time. It’s not a learning tool, and using it as such is a terrible idea.
If you want to use it for search, don’t just take it at face value. Click into its sources, and verify the information.
Eh
If I program something to always reply “2” when you ask it “how many [thing] in [thing]?” It’s not really good at counting. Could it be good? Sure. But that’s not what it was designed to do.
Similarly, LLMs were not designed to count things. So it’s unsurprising when they get such an answer wrong.
You sure you didn’t play Bofa?
It was inevitable. We took a mishmash of things that kinda worked together with a patchwork of software and shoved it into a streamlined define with a custom made interface to tie it all together. One of those things pushes the user to learn more, and it’s not the finished and polished product.
Nah, wildcard cert wouldn’t play into it at all.
Once Human for the nth consecutive week since release.
This would never pass PR review.
Innit?
This is terrible.
You should never rely on a browser interpreting a non standard use in a specific way. It can change at any moment, and wouldn’t be reliably reversed because it’s inherently non standard.
I dunno, I’ve played with magnets that have the ability to pull their way through my hand before, so it’ll all come down to implementation. Sounds more reliable than some plastic.
<.< My friend, look at the first of the two presented options.
Yes, most here will self host it. The app at least presents the concept of a centralized host as an option.
Why would Microsoft tell him what he wanted?
The spelling mistake isn’t the problem, it just makes no god damn sense.
Potentially but would you not expect one drive to at least remove the ones that it has access to?
Yeah, that doesn’t really apply to the story I was replying to. The complaint was about Microsoft not believing the user owned the account.
It’s tangentially related to the overall topic, and that could indeed be the root cause, but “they didn’t give him access because he didn’t know the new password” is security 101.
I’m honestly not even certain what you’re trying to say in that first sentence.
Almost always != always, and an individual falling for a scam where they hand off their password would typically fall into the category of “unable to prove ownership”.
No? The “root of the problem” is that the cloud service the files were stored in, was deauthed. At that point, I would absolutely expect all files to be deleted.
You can argue that M$ shouldn’t have pushed for that by default, but the problem as described is “user stored their important files in one drive, they gave away their password, password was changed, new password was unknown, one drive removed all local copies of files stored in it, microsoft couldn’t verify who they were when they called.”
Had this been the other way around, where the scammer got file access and the original user reset their password, you’d expect the scammer to have the local copies deleted… would you not?
*Laughs in blazor*