I would suspect never.

Either they are obsessed with their “work” and do it far more than that, or they do nothing.

And at least in some distributions, they do exactly that, a number of aliases for the same interface. And you can add your own.

Finally, my life-sized hotwheels car can have a suitable route.

I’m guessing they have a job like mine, where a driving trip is a relatively rare occurrence and micromanaging the travel isn’t worth it to mitigate the risk of paying out a little more.

Yeah, that’s a grandmother, so what?

Just have a bookshelf behind you during the interview, you’ll be golden.

Or maybe have the oval office as a backdrop, that might really make you qualified.

The ioniq 5 N has that covered, evidently: https://youtu.be/DSIguemKIbQ?si=Do2diTJm8-_Hb9Ro

Or playing cards in the wheels

I presume the facial recognition would be trying to match against faces without the makeup.

If you always use the same makeup pattern, then I guess it can latch onto that like anything else, if trained to do so.

Also note that facial recognition tries to break down a face into discrete “pieces” so it can match a face in profile against the same face from the front. In your example the image is visually similar because they are both exactly the same angle, no ‘facial recognition’ involved. If it can’t figure out what a cheekbone is, what a nose is, generally what a ‘face’ is, then that would count as fouling the facial recognition because it would be unable to use a reference facial database.

What we didn’t know was that Zebras evolved to defeat AI comera recognition.

Well that’s why they set up a ministry to manage the silly walks, to make sure they complied with gait recognition before they were used.

Left half of my face black, right half of my face white. Then I could fight those no good people who have a black right side of their face and white left side.

I like this edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevrolet_Citation&diff=prev&oldid=1180412779&title=Chevrolet_Citation&diffonly=1

Well, arguably still “incorrect” in real world terms since it fails to have an adjustment for divisibility of D as a function of how many people. If theoretically a task is “perfectly divisible” at two people and halves the time, it will not be the case that a million people will cause it to happen in one millionth of the time. Improvement by expressly pointing out “C” and declaring your assumption of zero for math to work. Also assumption than for any increment of X, the time impact is equal.

In math this is pedantic, but it sure impact project planning in very disastrous ways, and business people love to assume C is zero, any change to X is linear and with linear impact, and make embarrassingly bad calls as a result.

Based on my kids math questions… I’m not so sure…

My kid showed me a test question from a junior high math test about construction a building in 12 months with x number of workers, how many workers do they need to hire if they want it done in 6 months.

So I guess if you answer that question “wrong” youd be smart, and if you answer it right, management. Even a junior high student mocked it…

Per https://www.gnu.org/software/tar/, it’s been the case since 2004, so for about 19 and a half years…

Well, tar.zstd is starting to be the thing now.

You don’t need the z, it auto detects the compression

I also speak English, and now I’m extra exiled and will have to go to some country that I don’t speak the language.

I was not familiar and I’m American. Guess they’ll have to exile me somewhere…