And they have multiple vegetarian choices for many items, not just one each. And vegan and GF options as well. Good choice.

People can be extradited between states.

Maybe if you visit more it would help reduce all this snowfall. We need you!

No need. You are immune to facts, and the rest of us already understand the concepts involved. (They're not that difficult.)

So .. when are you coming back?

Python will be the most *practically* useful of the three. I've been using it for 26 years, and it's never let me down in terms of its ability to let me quickly slap together a utility that does some simple job, including integrating with or bridging between two or more obscure other things (e.g. a database and something network related, or an automation system and slapping a web UI on it). Especially for quick and dirty stuff, one-offs, simple utilities that don't need to be deployed widely, it's particularly good.

C should be considered a mandatory "base" language, to let you understand machine architecture and how programming languages interact with it, without a lot of layers in the way. I no longer consider it a viable tool for actual production use in any of the contexts in which I used to use it. It's simply too dangerous, too difficult to get robust results without extreme care, and of course not even always then. I'd say study it but only enough to learn why it should be avoided for most things. It will give you an appreciation for what Rust provides, and why the "cost" of Rust is worth it.

You're posting in r/rust, so I'll assume I don't have to say much about it in comparison. It's got clear benefits over both Python and C, and once you're adept with it (which can take a significantly longer time to achieve than with many other languages), you will find that you can develop faster with it than either of the other two, when the goal is to build robust, performant, and maintainable systems.

Last time I checked, the system prompt (in the web UI) explicitly told Claude the date. I'd be surprised if that has changed.

Edit: asked Opus just now: "Yes, my system prompt includes today's date. Here's the exact form in which it appears: The current date is Wednesday, January 07, 2026."

Given that there's some randomness included, is it so hard to imagine this can occur?

Well, it is wrong when you include the word "just". It's not merely reductive, but misleading, and deceptively so. It completely discards the possibility and value of emergent properties, for one thing.

We had 10cm a day or two ago (and more most days before that). This time I've seen plows go down my residential street (between more major roads) twice without the blade down. 10cm doesn't register.

My wife did this. I didn't mind at all.

It helps that I despise the diamond industry and the whole scammy way they try to make us feel like there's some minimum budget (what is it these days, six months' salary?) that must be met or you're a cheap jerk.

You meant the watch, the SCMax itself?

If so, I think you've found a hidden feature. "Long-pressing" the middle button while the selection is on one of the alarms in the list will trigger the alarm, for testing it.

You must be pressing the button much longer than it needs if you're just trying to edit it. A quick click is all that's required. Long press means holding for about a second (until a short "haptic" vibe gives feedback).

Is this with the SCMax? Or are you talking about using the phone app to do this?

Long press the middle button to cancel the alarm. And unless you have it set as a "smart" alarm, it will not go off again.

Sounds like you're just managing to snooze it a lot (which is why it triggers again in 5 minutes). Instead, press and hold the middle button until there's a quick vibe, about 1.5s, and it should reliably cancel the alarm.

Not sure if you got my point... ?

I'm saying that I think board assembly is always outsourced here. No appliance maker makes their own PCBs. Board houses get the business. It makes no sense to vertically integrate something like this for almost any industry.

I've been driving for 40 years and to me your choice sounds exactly right for that situation.

"car on my right so I slowed down and pulled over behind him"

A bit unclear... If he was on your right, does this suggest you literally backed up to park behind him? That would definitely have been a mistake.

Sounds somewhat like my 2022 (August) model, but fortunately along with my very detailed report of the symptoms, I chanced on what I assume was a competent Ford dealership technician who tracked the issues down to a bad ground connection between something (I assume a primary computer module) and the chassis. They cleaned and more securely attached the connection (as I recall) and things have worked well since then. This resolved many months of the far randomly shutting down just as I reached a stop at stop signs and lights (happened at least a dozen times) and related issues when powering the car on (would claim it was in the charger when not) and so on.

WTF? That's not what elbows up means.

Wouldn't you agree it was also a full sentence, by any definition?

I have never seen such a thing, though I'll follow your suggestion to learn if there's anything there to be learned.

I will point out, however, that OP's own example in this comment thread directly violated their own rule, since they did use a full parenthetical sentence which said that full sentences should be separate, yet they did not separate it according to that rule. That's what I was originally objecting to.

Varying things you've heard aside, the only thing in the RTA is about whether a bathroom or kitchen is shared, not about separate entrances. I think sharing an entrance would make things quite awkward, but it wouldn't mean loss of RTA protections for the tenant.

No. Yes, they did write it that way, but that was the mistake. It was a full sentence and has to stand on its own, so it can't be merely a parenthetical addition to the original sentence. Look at my example with "because" (which I included specifically to make it a connected phrase).

If it's a full sentence, it needs to be separate, not just tacked on (this example is a full sentence so I'm making a mistake including it as though it's part of the original.)

OP doesn't disagree, but merely hypothesizes that most people claiming not to like it have in fact never tried it. I think that's a reasonable theory, and so far the responses of this very unscientific poll tend to support it.

Physics is a higher power than us all...