It remains ridiculous that schools continue to view themselves as extrajudicial courts where they get to demand your testimony and then extract pretext to punish you according to their sensibilities of the moment.

Keep in mind you are often not allowed to have legal counsel but they start by telling you "oh just an informality"*

At this point virtually all the multi-billion dollar tech companies are American or Chinese. Europe's combined startup revenue over the last 50 years is less than Home Depot. The EU's GDP has been Welp, THAT was a big mistake.

If you want to set ground rules fine. But if the output of *your particular attempt* at it is to get effectively zero innovation and declining economic output, shouldn't the conclusion be "wow we seem to be really bad at this we may need to adjust our approach"?

"Kids" seems an odd place to draw the line in this case. I think most adults also are a bit vulnerable stepping into a complete stranger's car and might also prefer not to be assaulted?

Believe it or not there are lots of pedagogical approaches besides "assign and grade homework assignments."

And without getting in to the many alternatives, it's pretty easy to to solve this problem just by (a) all work is optional, only graded for those who want feedback (b) all evaluation is conducted by end-of-term -- or end-of-degree -- in person testing. In that case there would be zero incentive or benefit to use generative AI for assignments (other than as a study aid).

The reason that would not be exceptionally popular is because universities, rather than being forums for the great ideas of the world to be pursued by the adept, are now a place to shove listless young adults, stamp them with the correct views, and push them out with a coming of age certificate. Impediments due to lack of ability, dedication, or character are considered problems for the university to deal with, usually by finding a way to make those issues less relevant to the final outcome.

So you have to create hundreds of opportunities to get some kind of non-exam credit and half of your job is begging pleading and pushing for students to submit enough of that work to pass. And that kind of work tends to be easy to passably output with AI. But you really don't have to provide an education that way.

To recap, you believe Jared Isaacman is unqualified to head NASA, and your evidence is... that you lost a package recently?

You must be talking about a completely different country? This story is about the UK, the most busybody government-knows-best nannystate that exists in the developed world.

Let's review the recent case of Sudiksha Thirumalesh
- past the age of majority (19 years old)
- wanted to go to Canada for experimental treatment
- parents also wanted that
- judge rules she cannot go, is not competent to make medical decisions (not because of any mental deficiency), and must die in palliative care instead (which she does)
- details also restricted by the court from being discussed publicly discussed until her passing (limiting ability to make public appeals for help)

Is that the "not the government" "let the person decide" approach we can look forward to? Oh. Yay.

At this point in the Netherlands only 60% of assisted suicides are made with patient consent. In one case, a 74 year old woman protested that she wanted to live. The solution? Drug her coffee and proceed anyway, because she "wasn't competent" to rescind her previous decision. (The courts ultimately upheld this.)

In Canada patients are being recommended assisted suicide as an alternative when they are disabled, stuck on patient waiting lists, or too poor to receive treatment. In 2027 suicide will be extended to people with mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety. This all barely 10 years after it was introduced only for terminally ill adults. It is now the second highest cause of death for young people 10-24 in Canada.

But I will bet in another 10 years the egregiousness of Canada will be far eclipsed by the UK. The ability to induce suicide is a tool, and once it is available, like any tool, it starts to be applied wherever the effect is deemed useful. A government can find many, many uses for it, especially a government so self-assured that it always knows best as the British one.

Can we hold the copyright conglomerates to the same standard and they have to prove, e.g., that every movie produced is not reliant on no member of the production having seen any previous copyrighted movie?

Notably, according to the US Constitution, the raison d’être of copyright is

So if generative AI is more prolific in those domains, arguably, we may have reached the end of the public utility of patents and copyright.

Wouldn't it be awfully convenient if you wanted to splice into some telecoms infrastructure and there just happened to be an accident taking that infrastructure offline whilst you installed your own monitoring hardware?

Lots of things nation states can be interested in doing that are more nuanced than just causing damage.

All of that is false.

He did not sue advertisers (which doesn't even make sense if you are worried about incentizing them to buy from you).

The suit is against Media Matters, a partisan news org, for defamation.

They claimed twitter was presenting brand advertising to users next to objectionable content in order to convince those advertisers to leave the platform (which they did; causing a rather significant loss in revenue).

But Media Matters didn't mention that what they actually did was create a bunch of accounts that *only* followed accounts with objectionable content and then endlessly refreshed the content until they got a few add placements.

Twitter's logs showed, e.g., that an Apple ad had only been displayed in such a way to two accounts (at least one of which was to Media Matters, if not both) and that out of a half-billion accounts.

It's not clear that any normal user would ever see what Media Matters worked very hard to produce. So "hey advertisers better leave twitter or your brand will become known by its crude associations!" is a maliciously false presentation - and what they are now going to a have to defend themselves in court (their motion to dismiss was denied).

What charges would those be?

"Coplan was not arrested and has not been charged, a Polymarket spokesperson told The Post on Wednesday evening."

In fact the nature of the betting matters very much for whether it is legal. A federal court had ruled in September that prediction markets outside the scope of commodities (such as for elections) could not be regulated under the delegated authority of the CFTC.

Polymarket is also not based in the US and - unless they changed recently based on that ruling - has geoblocked US users from their services, and does not itself bet anything. So no, if they are in legal waters for something, it is almost certainly not "illegal betting."

Except a source "close to the matter" saying there are political motives is the story? You can dispute if you want to trust the anonymous sourcing which attests that, but given that's what's being reported, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the headline.

And a reflexive dismissal is probably not warranted given we just got confirmation from FEMA that one of their directors ordered relief efforts to avoid homes with Trump signs (and that director is now claiming that she was just following standard operating procedure). If misconduct over political tensions is a real occurrence, then accusations of it should be taken at least seriously enough to investigate.

-- The Carbon Emissions of Writing and Illustrating Are Lower for AI than for Humans, pg. 6

I'm not personally a fan of replacing writers with AI to drastically reduce the associated carbon emissions, but I would like to know if the people who say I need to give up hamburgers to reduce CO2 (among other deprivations) can explain why that shouldn't happen in context of their own criteria.

If you're wondering why you hear phrases like "position of privilege" and "direct experience" being invoked in a discussion about science, let me explain.

This has nothing to do with science. It is postmodernist bilge. These people are active enemies of science, they reject its ability to determine objective truth and elevate "lived experience" and "other ways of knowing" as equally if not more valid. Science itself to them is considered "colonial" (because of its association with the Western Englightment; hence "privilege in western countries").

The emphasis on lived experience is why this is all about feelings. And it's important that they feel attacked and hurt and dismissed. That gives them the coveted status of oppressed in the oppressor-oppressed dynamic, which in their view automatically makes them good and makes it the duty of others to accommodate them.

This stuff has been leaking in from the humanities and you're starting to see it more and more in scientific journals, because while real scientists might just care about doing good science, the editorial staff are usually humanities dabblers or crossovers and they are pulling in this non-science viewpoint with them.

If the West continues to treat foreign actors trying to destabilize its societies through malicious exploitation of their internal freedoms as mere ah-well-what-can-you-do behavior, it's going to either loose its freedom or its social order, probably both.

There needs to be a cost imposed on the external actors, and it needs to be sufficient to dissuade them from continuing.

Even China long ago realized that pure Communism was not a route to success

You would think that maybe a close pal like, idk, Venezuela, would at least be able to help with the fuel problem. Except oil production there significantly collapsed under Hugo Chavez.

It's taken a bit longer than the Soviet Union, but communism in Latin America may be reaching its point of collapse as well.

That's probably true now, but it looks like he has been petitioning the city since fairly soon after the drive was lost, almost certainly before they would have finished out the most recent cell of the landfill.

The real problem is that his proposed prize (millions of dollars for taxpayers) really isn't very interesting to anyone involved. They as individuals would get none of it, just the headache of sorting through process and paperwork. Without hosting some very expensive dinners and hinting at certain helpful donations that could be made, there was never the slightest chance of getting move on this.