Moreover, it's tied into a particular workflow, so to use the "tool" in other schools will have to completely rewrite their internal processes.

Reread the GP's post and rethink your selective quoting. The software manages lessons, but you still have to write them in the first place. As with most teacher-enabling technologies (as opposed to teacher-replacing technologies), the tool has a large time-cost in initial setup, and the teacher won't get any payoff for several years. The best example of this pattern would be the question bank. The idea was that teachers would collect their problem sets year-on-year, so that they could alter their worksheets and create new ones at will. However, as the main question sheets don't need to change every year, the teachers wouldn't gain anything from the exercise until and unless there was a major change to the curriculum, but even in that case, the collected extra questions (taken from tests written fresh each year) would be just as out-of-date as any of the main classwork problems that were invalidated by the curriculum changes.

Unless you mean "model" in the sense of a small toy.

There are multiple Englishes -- there are things you say that I wouldn't, and vice versa. However, in this case, there was a clear accidental error. And I would agree that it raises a wee smile, given the context.

I blame grid-iron. Most major cities in Europe have a radial construction which makes bus and train routes very efficient. With buses converging and diverging ipon the radial routes, and a couple of "circles" intersecting them, you can usually get to most places with just a single change. In smaller cities, you don't even need the circle routes.

Nobody needs SUVs. Some people need true utility vehicles, but SUV was a category invented for posers who want to look like lumberjacks. I loathe SUVs because they eschew many of the principles of car design that are aimed at reducing injury to pedestrians in the case of accidents, and all as some pitiful fashion statement or a selfish (misplaced) feeling of increased personal safety.

Why not single out SUVs? For decades, cars have been designed to minimise the damage to pedestrians by having a low bonnet/hood that would connect with an adult below the pelvis and all major organs and below the centre of gravity, throwing them onto the hood. This allows the kinetic energy to be delivered over time, decreasing injury and improving survival rates.

An SUV, on the other hand, typically has high suspension and a tall vertical grille. I've not seen an SUV that wouldn't shatter my pelvis if it hit me, and I've seen plenty bug enough that they would liquify every vital organ in my body except the brain if they hit me at speed.

The old safety designs also were safer for cyclists, as the same mechanism that throws the pedestrian over the bonnet lifts the cyclist. However, with an SUV, you can get brought down under the vehicle, bringing your head down to the height of the grille.

SUVs need singled out, because driving one is a sign of either ignorance of the safety of others of sheer selfishness.

You're not exactly the target market though, are you? If your entire commute is by major highways, you're not adding to inner-city congestion.

In the UK, no-one will build a supermarket if the local bus company doesn't have a service running past, and quite often they'll divert the service through the car park for the passengers. Both the supermarket and the bus company get more business.

IIRC correctly, the "wrong size of ball" was a common problem prior to metrication, as armies would employ cannons acquired as the spoils of war, and their bore gauges were often fractionally different due to local definitions of the inch, leading to country A's cannonball jamming country B's cannon and ccracking the barrel upon ignition, and country B's cannonball flopping limply out of country A's barrel after all the explosive force leaking round the sides.

Traditional powder cannons are prone to user error. Loading the wrong size of ball, reloading while the barrel's above powder flashpoint etc... these things can damage the cannon and/or the user. Literary canon obviously isn't self-destructive, but it is highly, highly prone to user error.

I agree with you on that. Kasdan wrote good stories... Lucas didn't. That's the main thing. However, I do think using aliens was misjudged, because Indy is Indy, not its source material.

Has the term "neural network" ever been applied to anything other than artificial ones?

Yes, but the point is to enable people to create their own, which involves the training parts. When I was at uni (at the end of the century), I only got to play around with neural nets comprising 10 to 20 nodes, because our Sparqstations couldn't handle anything bigger. With an appropriate toolkit for NNs on standard GPUs, people will be able to run 1000-node nets at home. It won't be research-grade stuff, but it will give the opportunity to add practical NNs into artificial intelligence MOOCs and even high-school curriculums.

And completely disregarding the fact that Leia knew her mother, who we assume married some dude on Alderaan after splitting from Anakin. She was very sad... as well you might be when the love of your life decides he wants to crush the galaxy under his shiny black jackboots.