The article brings up good criticisms, like all the minors getting molested due to the platform being negligent, and manipulative in game spending options. Paying for online content creation work doesn’t seem as bad as that to me though.
Ms. Chatman was struck, in part, by her own experiences at the school in contrast to Mr. Damsky’s award. She had proposed teaching a class during her time there called “Race, Entrepreneurship and Inequality.” But administrators at the law school changed the name to “Entrepreneurship,” she said, before listing it in the course catalog.
She attributed the change to Florida lawmakers’ crackdown on diversity-oriented language and themes in public education, a push that preceded the Trump administration’s broader war on progressive ideology.
Sounds like the college agrees, though maybe not about which ones
I’d like to offer the counterpoint that someone once advised me not to try weed until after I’d tried LSD, I followed that advice and I think it turned out for the better. There isn’t exactly a benefit to being very impressed by the intensity of other drug experiences, and psychedelics can give you a sense of perspective about what you want out of life that’s useful for navigating choices. They also tend to be self-deterring; you likely will feel more satisfied and grateful to have your feet on solid ground again after a trip, as opposed to immediately craving more, even if it was wonderful, which is a very convenient property many other drugs lack.
“It’s just that — neutrality,” she added. “The government — in this case, our public university — stays out of picking sides, so that, through the marketplace of ideas, you can debate and arrive at truth for yourself and for the community.”
Some at the law school agree with her stance. In an interview, John F. Stinneford, a professor at the university, said that it would be “academic misconduct” for a law professor who opposed abortion to give a lower grade to a well-argued paper advocating abortion rights.
This makes sense to me as a principle, but the idea that the paper is genuinely making a good argument seems really questionable.
Among originalists, though, this interpretation [apparently that “We the People,” refers to white people, and therefore the constitution applies to them exclusively] has been widely rejected. Instead, conservatives have argued that much of the text of the Constitution “tilts toward liberty” for all, said Jonathan Gienapp, an associate professor of history and law at Stanford. They also note that the post-Civil War amendments guaranteeing rights to nonwhite people “washed away whatever racial taint” there was in the original document.
Sounds like not even other originalists take it seriously. On its face the idea seems really stupid, since the wording of that part of the constitution doesn’t involve race, and whiteness has always been a very loosely defined concept with a lot of ambiguity that wouldn’t be a natural fit for a legal principle. So maybe the paper is getting a high grade and an award is itself a display of personal bias.
“You do get defeated knowing that homes are so expensive after looking today,” Bartolini said. “I hope people in power, they change the price of things. There has to be a way to make everything go cheaper. There’s no way that it can just keep going up and up and up cause then people won’t be able to live.”
I think he wants to change it but maybe doesn’t totally understand the real options for changing it.
sell things that you actually have the rights to print and sell.
This would exclude the thousands of makers who subscribe to designers like Cinderwing3D, and have permission to print and sell her articulated dragon designs.
It sounds like they do have the rights, and this policy is still causing problems for them because there’s a difference between having the rights and being the original creator.
The fact that these places exist and aren’t shut down has always really bothered me, horrible stuff
What you confuse here is doing something that can benefit from applying logical thinking with doing science.
I’m not confusing that. Effective programming requires and consists of small scale application of the scientific method to the systems you work with.
the argument has become “but it seems to be thinking to me”
I wasn’t making that argument so I don’t know what you’re getting at with this. For the purposes of this discussion I think it doesn’t matter at all how it was written or whether what wrote it is truly intelligent, the important thing is the code that is the end result, whether it does what it is intended to and nothing harmful, and whether the programmer working with it is able to accurately determine if it does what it is intended to.
The central point of it is that, by the very nature of LKMs to produce statistically plausible output, self-experimenting with them subjects one to very strong psychological biases because of the Barnum effect and therefore it is, first, not even possible to assess their usefulness for programming by self-exoerimentation(!) , and second, it is even harmful because these effects lead to self-reinforcing and harmful beliefs.
I feel like “not even possible to assess their usefulness for programming by self-exoerimentation(!)” is necessarily a claim that reading and testing code is something no one can do, which is absurd. If the output is often correct, then the means of creating it is likely useful, and you can tell if the output is correct by evaluating it in the same way you evaluate any computer program, without needing to directly evaluate the LLM itself. It should be obvious that this is a possible thing to do. Saying not to do it seems kind of like some “don’t look up” stuff.
Are you saying that it is not possible to use scientific methods to systematically and objectively compare programming tools and methods?
No, I’m saying the opposite, and I’m offended at what the author seems to be suggesting, that this should only be attempted by academics, and that programmers should only defer to them and refrain from attempting this to inform their own work and what tools will be useful to them. An absolutely insane idea given that the task of systematic evaluation and seeking greater objectivity is at the core of what programmers do. A programmer should obviously be using their experience writing and testing both typing systems to decide which is right for their project, they should not assume they are incapable of objective judgment and defer their thinking to computer science researchers who don’t directly deal with the same things they do and aren’t considering the same questions.
This was given as an example of someone falling for manipulative trickery:
A recent example was an experiment by a CloudFlare engineer at using an “AI agent” to build an auth library from scratch.
From the project repository page:
I was an AI skeptic. I thought LLMs were glorified Markov chain generators that didn’t actually understand code and couldn’t produce anything novel. I started this project on a lark, fully expecting the AI to produce terrible code for me to laugh at. And then, uh… the code actually looked pretty good. Not perfect, but I just told the AI to fix things, and it did. I was shocked.
But understanding and testing code is not (necessarily) guesswork. There is no reason to assume this person is incapable of it, and no reason to justify the idea that it should never be attempted by ordinary programmers when that is the main task of programming.
The problem, though, with responding to blog posts like that, as I did here (unfortunately), is that they aren’t made to debate or arrive at a truth, but to reinforce belief. The author is simultaneously putting himself on the record as having hardline opinions and putting himself in the position of having to defend them. Both are very effective at reinforcing those beliefs.
A very useful question to ask yourself when reading anything (fiction, non-fiction, blogs, books, whatever) is “what does the author want to believe is true?”
Because a lot of writing is just as much about the author convincing themselves as it is about them addressing the reader. …
There is no winning in a debate with somebody who is deliberately not paying attention.
This is all also a great argument against the many articles claiming that LLMs are useless for coding, in which the authors all seem to have a very strong bias. I can agree that it’s a very good idea to distrust what people are saying about how programming should be done, including mistrusting claims about how AI can and should be used for it.
We need science #
Our only recourse as a field is the same as with naturopathy: scientific studies by impartial researchers. That takes time, which means we have a responsibility to hold off as research plays out
This on the other hand is pure bullshit. Writing code is itself a process of scientific exploration; you think about what will happen, and then you test it, from different angles, to confirm or falsify your assumptions. The author seems to be saying that both evaluating correctness of LLM output and the use of Typescript is comparable to falling for homeopathy by misattributing the cause of recovering from illness. The idea that programmers should not use their own judgment or do their own experimentation, that they have no way of telling if code works or is good, to me seems like a wholesale rejection of programming as a craft. If someone is avoiding self experimentation as suggested I don’t know how they can even say that programming is something they do.
Doesn’t that game already have a “behavior score”?
Its not a “boomer” issue. Its a rich vs poor issue
This, real estate is a form of wealth, and as the distribution of wealth becomes more one sided housing is naturally going to follow it as long as the law enables it to be used as an investment.
Well it is from the youtube transcript which interprets “ninety sixty” as 960. I didn’t want to watch the video either so there’s not much point trying to proofread for accuracy and I didn’t bother, but I’ll correct that detail. If you want to watch the video and come up with your own summary, feel free. To me the important details here are that it is $350 and 16GB vram.
Here’s a summary of the transcript generated with qwen3:
Product Overview:
Pricing and Strategy:
Performance Comparison:
Hardware Design:
AMD’s Transparency Initiative:
Market Positioning:
Conclusion:
Final Verdict: A strong contender in the mid-range GPU segment, the RX 9060 XT offers a balanced mix of performance, VRAM, and price, positioning AMD as a formidable competitor to NVIDIA in the current GPU landscape.
The video doesn’t mention it but I looked it up and apparently this card has msrp of $350, but comments on the video are predicting that in practice it will be more expensive than that.
Just like old web forums, how nostalgic
Sure, if you think to do so before your computer doesn’t work
Lots of Windows machines come with the OS preinstalled but no install media, you will need another computer in that case.
This legislation makes the online environment for children worse, so it’s a moot point; whether you think it’s the government’s place to take a proactive stance on this or not, it’s still bad either way.
Uhh that’s kind of not how tests are supposed to work. If you want non-falsifiable conviction in human specialness, maybe try religion instead.