The whole exploitation bit they'll get, but they don't associate that with the academic concept of capitalism, but rather with all kinds of power structures that have existed far longer than capitalism.
I really think you're too optimistic in the average person's ability to define these terms correctly.
I think you'd be surprised how poor the general state of education is... I think it's also in part why left-wing politicians lately are failing to get traction with the lower-educated. They speak in a way that doesn't resonate, and that's in part because they're working with different assumptions and definitions.
It's what people like Trump do understand very well, he speaks like they speak to each other. As a result, even if they don't fully follow along, it makes more sense to them.
I don't survey people on the street, but they likely would be closer to the definition accepted in academia than the mere buying and selling of goods.
I think that's optimistic. The average persons understanding of these concepts is very limited. They'd most likely call ancient Rome "capitalist", because "they're not communist".
That's the average persons understanding. There's capitalism and there's communism, and communism is when you own nothing and everyone is poor and capitalism is everything not-communism. It's deeply disappointing but that's what you're up against.
So when an intellectual person says "capitalism is human nature", it means something completely different from when an average person says it. To both the 400-years argument won't make sense.
An intellectual will argue that it naturally came about, so it must be human nature for it to arise so prominently. An average person will laugh in your face "because Rome wasn't communist". Neither is correct in their own way, but they're also not going to be convinced by the 400 years argument. One doesn't believe you, the other doesn't care.
Historical examples of proto-socialism or communal living would be a stronger counterpoint imo. Not because it's more correct in a theoretical sense, but because it more directly challenges the core of the opposing sides argument.
Rumor has it that Marvel was worried it would bomb, and naming it "New Avengers" would put them in an awkward position moving forward. Thunderbolts was the backup-insurance-title basically.
Now that the movie seems to be doing well, it's getting its proper title.
You'd be surprised...
Perhaps true, the value of LLM prompting instructions are probably limited.
I disagree with the premise that requiring instructions on how to prompt Copilot for something eliminates the reason for Copilot to exist. Copilot is a tool and just like any other tool it may require some instructions for someone who is new to it. You and I might find it intuitive, but Joe Shmo might not.
But that's not what the section does, it highlights how to use what is being documented with Copilot, in case you're not sure how to prompt it correctly.
Copilot isn't perfect. And sometimes you don't know that you can make Copilot do something if you don't know it exists.
Not tennis balls, no. Quite frankly I can't remember what it was. Just the colour stuck 😅
Whether a specific colour was green or yellow. We eventually looked up the RGB value to settle it, and as it turns out it is the exact shade that's halfway to yellow and halfway to green.
We were both equally correct in the end.
No, HL:Alyx functions as a sort-of prequel. The ending of it does provide a stepping stone from which HL3 could pick up again.
Those alarm clock widgets look like hard-to-read shit.