I don't see anyone "cheering her rebrand". I for one cheer good stances and ideas. Will I say Thomas Massey has good policies and should be voted for... absolutely not. Will I say he's right when he says we need the facts about the epstien files, yes.

I'll agree with a good policy, or a correct idea from anyone's mouth, while holding whether they should be voted for on the totality of their actions.

I'm assuming this is way back when there was the isreal missile shield vote. MTG was part of the opposition to it, AOC basically argued it was purely defensive so we should back it. IMO that's one of AOCs worse takes on a subject that I've seen, when otherwise I would say I like AOCs stances 95% of the time.

I mean I think he got it after a few seconds, he did laugh, and then comment how everything was so serious before then and it took him a bit to get it. I don't think that was why I didn't get the job.

agreed there, though where I'd say further it's about rules internal consistency as well. IE obviously just about every fictional monster has a complete disregard of science, though some more than others can stick to the rules set out in the fictional world.

Answer to all those questions is that they’re magical fictional creatures.

I mean there is that, but at least to some extent fiction has rules, though it's worth pointing out most broadly, that's the issue with popular frequently re-imagined things, as every lore has it's own complete seperate set of rules. Rules are added, removed, changed etc... for every re-interpretation. Zombies could be cursed, magical or maybe semi-realistic scientific explanation. Same problem if you try and explain vampires, as obviously the classic lore they need to be invited in, can be defended from by throwing rice on the ground, cannot cross running water, weak to sun, can't have reflections, only killable with a wooden stake, or supernaturals vampires that can only be decapitated and lack most of those weaknesses, or twilight where the sun makes them glittery.

Yeah I believe i remember roughly the explanation I gave to the interviewer.

TCP basically takes the time to confirm every detail actually was recieved, used in almost all situations in networking where accuracy is critical.

UDP is basically when speed is the more important than everything being perfect, (we were on a zoom call), Like say this video call, if the background gets blurry or a few frames drop or even my face distorts for a few seconds, that would be less of an inconvenience to us than if the network took the time and made sure to transmit every frame exactly as the camera picks it up, at the cost of an extra 10 seconds of lag in the call.

on a job interview in IT, an interviewer asked me if I understood the difference between TCP and UDP. After giving the best technical explanation I could, I ended with

I could tell you a UDP joke, but I'm not sure if you'd get it.

He said go ahead

I paused, that was it.

Kind of awkward.

I didn't get the job.

I invented a new power generation method!

Amazing, is it actually new, or is it steam again

... it's steam again.

It's a lot of land, and a lot of oil. Just because it's the same country doesn't make it easy

Which makes sense, as long as you haven't said it was absolutely perfect I wouldn't change a thing.

Some of the energy is converted to light.

I'm not a cereal pedophile, because I don't make my own breakfast, staff brings it from mcdonalds.