If that's a genuine non-sarcastic question that isn't whooshing me then no - there can be other things like memory/disk usage... but if I'm optimizing for CPU I want it to use less overall cycles. It may be that the easiest fix is to throw money at the problem (always a fair option) which would mean getting a beefier/more processor cores to make the performance acceptable but this would usually just shift how cycles are being used to process them faster.
My joke above was that it'd use more total cycles which actually is generally the case if you're solving a problem by throwing resources at it (since you're likely incurring more overhead) but generally when you optimize you want to reduce the total number of cycles by somehow locating and eliminating work that doesn't need to be done.
I think the great peacemaker is uncontroversially seen as a historical figure (sort of similar to Jesus was probably a dude) but while Jesus said really nice stuff they're better known for miracle stuff... the great peacemaker does have some miracles like crossing a lake on a granite canoe but most of what he did was negotiating the peace to unite the confederacy. All that stuff he did is probably historically accurate with the miracles likely being embellishments over time.
Also the great peacemaker and the creator and their twin are distinct figures. It sounds like you understand that but I just wanted to clarify that.
Someone needs to be the advocate for clean code and how it will reduce incidents and errors - it's not easy but you can make progress. If you're that deep in the whole automated tests might be a good focus?
Shorts are always risky especially and there's a chance that Trump mandates everyone buy a Tesla tomorrow or some bullahit but, and this is not financial advice, it seems like a crazy time to try and hold Tesla stock.
Again, of course we all know that, we all know that Russia is the aggressor here and Trump is clearly trying to put them in a favorable position for some reason that may be related to blackmail, future aspirations or just wanting to gargle Putin's balls. These are facts that can't change - but by accepting the cease fire and making these statements Zelenskyy is trying to maximize the blow back if and when America renegs to, ideally, maximize the support Ukraine can receive.
In the world of diplomacy appearance matters more than facts - three months ago America was the dominant economic force and had a military that could curb stomp anyone in formal battle - today America is still the dominant economic force and has a military that can curbstomp anyone in formal battle but they're an unreliable partner and so America has lost nearly all of their outsized soft/diplomatic power - the facts are still essentially the same, but the perception massively shifted.
Not quite, once you have adjusted it to your liking you'll want to copy the changes you made but you'll also need to somehow identify how to find the tag to apply them to. It'll usually be a class or Id reference that you should be able to view in the right panel while inspecting that element. Figuring out how to target then proper element is likely going to be the most difficult part of this task, unfortunately, and it's entirely dependent on how that specific site was built.
Double realpolitik spoiler: Zelenskyy expects that and is instead setting up a narrative to demand more action from sane countries (Canada, Europe) when the US inevitably renegs.
But as a fun little gift Rubio set the US up to look like assholes with a statement last night:
Rubio noted that if the Kremlin rejects the ceasefire proposal, "then we'll, unfortunately, know what the impediment is to peace here."
"Ukraine is ready to stop shooting and start talking," Rubio said, adding that U.S. President Donald Trump has been clear that he wants to stop the war swiftly.
This will be egg on the administration's face when they try and walk it back when Russia says "fuck off".
The Republicans literally control the entire government. Everything that is happening is their fault and if the Democrats feel like that won't be the case they suck at their fucking job.
The answer to your question is what you thought it was - CSS - someone may have pre-written the CSS for your specific use case but CSS really isn't that scary and is pretty easy to bullshit your way through. The easiest way to play around with it is to right click the page element you're interested in and click Inspect you should the be able to manually increase the width (though you may have to try fiddling with the parent element or its parent etc...). The site will reflect your changes in live time and persist as long as the tab is open - the custom CSS extension is useful since it would allow you to persist those changes if you reload the page or open a new tab.
Hello there, I'm a senior level dev former manager specialized in database shit.
It can absolutely be difficult to trace complex misleading function calls but part of the emphasis in coding should be readability and expressiveness (personally my opinion is that the highest cost in software development is maintenance and difficult to comprehend code multiplies this cost). If something is so complicated that, while it's being written, it can't be comprehended then that'd be a huge red flag for me and I'd likely leave comments on the review asking for the code to be better labeled (either better variable/function names, comments, clearer division of class/module responsibility) and refactored. This may not be possible pushback to give in your organization (which would be a big company red flag) but if you have difficulty comprehending it now you'll have a lot of difficulty in the middle of an incident.
For me personally, I "trust" code labeling to help minimize the scope I need to keep in my head at any given time. If there's a call out to saveFileToS3() I won't inspect it now, I'll just trust it does what it says on the tin and keep my scope limited to the current change set to comprehend that. Later on in the review when I reach the definition of saveFileToS3() if it does anything sneaky, doesn't do anything necessary to that logical operation (like maybe the file is initially marked private and a second call is needed to mark the file as accessible) then I'll flag that. Code factorization is a tool for clarity and you should rely on and reinforce it - and if you are trusting ot you should verify that.
It sorta sounds like your company may be drastically underinvesting in code maintenance (everyone under invests but there is a reasonable amount of investment to demand) though, that's a red flag for me and may mean it'll be difficult for you to function in that environment.
Perhaps interactive, perhaps just directed. You set a setting, some actor/character preferences, and finally details about the action - then you have a curated and customized scene.
The real question is how it'll stay fresh, if that can be solved it'll capture immense value...
Now, whether that's a good thing I can't say, but it's worth a boatload of money.
It'd be porn. The answer is porn. The answer is usually porn but for this question in particular its absolutely porn. That is what's behind the GenAI revolution - a desire to see Marge Simpson bang Captain America in 4k.
I personally prefer using gender neutral pronouns in professional communications unless someone has set a clear preference - but even this is verboten under this administration they demand he/she and everything else is woke.
If that's a genuine non-sarcastic question that isn't whooshing me then no - there can be other things like memory/disk usage... but if I'm optimizing for CPU I want it to use less overall cycles. It may be that the easiest fix is to throw money at the problem (always a fair option) which would mean getting a beefier/more processor cores to make the performance acceptable but this would usually just shift how cycles are being used to process them faster.
My joke above was that it'd use more total cycles which actually is generally the case if you're solving a problem by throwing resources at it (since you're likely incurring more overhead) but generally when you optimize you want to reduce the total number of cycles by somehow locating and eliminating work that doesn't need to be done.