This is good advice for all tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, which are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information.

The whole paragraph is kinda FUD except for this. Normal research practice is to (get ready for a shock) do research and not just copy a high-level summary of what other people have done. If your professors were saying, "don't cite encyclopedias, which includes Wikipedia" then that's fine. But my experience was that Wikipedia was specifically called out as being especially unreliable and that's just nonsense.

I personally use ChatGPT like I would Wikipedia

Eesh. The value of a tertiary source is that it cites the secondary sources (which cite the primary). If you strip that out, how's it different from "some guy told me..."? I think your professors did a bad job of teaching you about how to read sources. Maybe because they didn't know themselves. :-(

Can't even ignore the pain of getting a post deleted...

I had this mouse and liked it. You rest the heel of your hand on the table and don't move your wrist at all. The mouse movement is fingers-only. Acceleration allows you to cover the entire screen with this very small amount of movement, and because it's all fingers it's highly accurate.

And like all ball-mice, it had a built-in fidget toy.

My most recent usage of AI was making some script that uses WinGet to setup a dev environment.

This is a good example. What I'm saying is that pre-AI, I could look this up on StackOverflow and copy/paste blindly and get a slightly higher success rate than today where I can "AI please solve this".

But I shouldn't pick at the details. I think the "AI hater" mentality comes in because we've got this thing that boils down to "a bit more convenient than copying the solution off of StackOverflow" when used very carefully and "much worse than copying and pasting random code" when used otherwise. But instead of this honest pitch, it's mega-hype and it's only when people demand specific examples that someone starts talking like you do here.

I wonder if the sleep-change fucks up our brains and that's why more people aren't upset about it.

Until this comment, I'd completely forgotten about how the most recent time-change messed up me and the puppy I've been training, because of course she needs to pee as soon as she wakes up at 6am every day...

I notice you asked for an explanation and then only sort-of read the first sentence.

I have no idea how well it works in reality, but I can imagine the Lifetime Pass being a good business model for them: only the most enthusiastic user will pay for 3 years up front (lifetime currently costs 3x the yearly). So when they get a Lifetime pass they're getting 3 years paid up front and an evangelist who will probably tell their friends about Plex. If that Lifetime subscriber gets even one person to sign up for a yearly sub who otherwise wouldn't have, then Plex came out ahead.

Sure, I'm not saying Plex has to do a single-payment model. Just that it's a think that's been done successfully (and for longer than Plex has existed). Everyone's pushing subscription models so hard that it's easy to think "this is the only possible way that anything can work".

Actual UML-according-to-some-books is old and unpopular now. I think C4 is taking its place, in that I've seen architect-types ask for it. More generally, I really like PlantUML and the prettier-looking Mermaid which both allow me to code diagrams using a text document.

Yeah, I agree: academia gets people expecting to go, "give me 2x Visitor Pattern, then 1 Builder Pattern, then as many Divide and Conquers as you need to reach the end". It can be nice to have a name for things, but most of the time I'm asking for, "see how the setup, actual work, and cleanup are nicely divided up? Do like that." Or, "let's put all the related endpoints in the same file."

• talks loudly in an open office when he take phone calls

That one's my least favorite. Might as well just grab me by the shoulders and shout your conversation in my face for how little work I'm getting done.

When Democrats are in power, the Republicans can stall things because they only have a slim majority and the extreme measures that they'd need to take are unpalatable to 5-30 of the most regressive Democrats. So their majority doesn't count for a lot.

Overall, I think this is partially just that Americans are pretty regressive (possibly because of all the propaganda, possibly because of our poor education). And partially the successful efforts by Republicans to control local government, which allows them to do things like gerrymander federal districts.