I use the magsafe on my laptop. I almost always use the laptop in the same place and only charge it there, so it's not getting mixed into my collection and picked back out, and the magsafe is somewhat easier to fumble into place than USB-C. If I was using it long enough somewhere different to need to charge it, I'd grab a USB-C (probably already nearby), rather than collecting the magsafe from where it's set up.

They could include things like special lines at immigration, rather than just visa requirements. Arriving in Amsterdam with an EU passport is much less of a hassle than arriving with a US passport, but they both count the same on this report. Then there's the question of whether you need a permit to stay indefinitely, or just the passport.

The person who made the report is a professional penetration tester. His usual method is to look for anything that could be wrong and then test whether it actually is. What he found is that the AI tools came up with potential issues he hadn't thought of, and they weren't all wrong, so it's a valuable tool to him because he normally runs out of ideas rather than running out of time to test them. He complained about the UI making it hard to go through large lists of reported issues exhaustively, and he only used the suggested fixes to get a better idea of what the issue was supposed to be. So it's clear that the tool's output wouldn't be directly useful to a maintainer, but it does serve a purpose.

I got a third-party cable for my phone that my phone recognizes as being able to charge it faster than the cable that came with the phone could. They should probably warn you that they don't have a cable or charger, in case you're getting a phone because you lost everything and don't have that stuff, but the first-party stuff isn't better these days.

I think it's even more interesting, in that one or two humans have to decide whether to question a call, and they have to identify calls that were wrong, not just ones they want to overturn, and they don't have a great angle to figure out what the algorithm would do. I think it's going to be fun to see batters try to do the ump's job, while standing to the side and considering swinging at the pitch.

I think the real issue is warm parts of China selling to cold parts of India without including the features that aren't needed near the factory. We know lots about battery chemistry, but rural farmers have had more immediately relevant things to know about up to now and don't have a good source of information on this new thing the government is pushing, so they skip things that sound like luxuries and end up with something inappropriate for their purpose.

Ironically enough, this would be good for most of Slashdot. It could have saved creimer.

I teach at a highly rated high school. I use AI to help me come up with ideas for lesson plans. I don't just accept it whole: even if I wanted to, AI lesson plans simply aren't coherent enough to actually use for an extended time.

As for the criticism that teachers use AI to make it, students use AI to do it, the process is a joke: it's two separate issues. Nobody cares how the teachers do it. We could use tarot cards, and if it made good lesson plans, hell yeah. The whole focus is on the students. Students need to know how to do the independent thinking on their own, or at least how to do the independent thinking with the assistance of an LLM (no teacher I know actually believes this, but I could see the argument being made).

And certainly every single teacher is aware that students can use AI to cheat. It's like at the forefront of teacher thought right now. I'm an English teacher using motherfucking blue books like it was 1987. Schools are all implementing paper tests, switch to in-class assignments only, weighting homework at 0% or nearby it because cheating on Homework has become trivial, etc.

Oh, finally, about AI grading. I'm sure it happens, but I've never heard of it happening. I guess I could see that for like a practice assignment? I don't think AI is trusted enough for students or parents to accept AI grading results, even if I wanted to do that.

Your argument is completely disingenuous. It actually weakens your argument, because if you had a good reason, you wouldn't be speaking obvious bullshit.

Every single person here knows that a car is generally used for normal, everyday stuff. Going to groceries, etc. If you see a car on a road, the chances are one in a million it's being currently used to commit a crime.

Likewise, every single person tech-literate enough to be on Slashdot knows this is used to store pirated media files, not your collections of homemade EDM or circa 1922 field recording.

Why BS? Why rely on an argument that everybody here knows isn't really true? Why not just call a spade a spade?

FreeRTOS?

Yeah, but Chromebooks are always 1:1 so students can do computers at home if they're sick/have homework/etc. Can't lock the network.

But then everything becomes test based. What about writing a long essay for english? A research paper for history class? A project for science class? A program for Computer Science?

Lockdown had negative effects on learning, but red states did not pull ahead of blue states (primarily because red states are poor and being rich matters more than schooling).

And it wasn't a two year blue state school lockdown. Schools closed in March 2020. Red States generally re-opened in September 2020 (next school year). Blue states re-opened in maybe March 2021 - second half of the next school year. I can't believe there was a single school district that didn't re-open until March 2022.

It's also difficult to say if it was specifically the school closures that hurt kids. Democrat kids are much more likely to live in cities or high-population suburbs, amongst a million other differences between red and blue states. Maybe the pandemic hits harder when you have to stay in your apartment complex vs. when you live outdoors more anyway.

The way teachers are dealing with this is by going entirely to in-class assignments done on paper and pencil. I'm Gen X and I didn't even turn in pen/paper big assignments, totally ridiculous. Nothing done at home or around a computer is to be trusted. And there is NOTHING to learn from teaching 3rd graders to be effective at using ChatGPT to do answers for them.

Giving the students the ability to cheat on their school computers seems backwards to me, but I guess when you can't trust anything that was possibly completed within range of a cell phone or computer, it doesn't really make any difference.

I'm also a big nerd. I believe in ChatGPT for certain uses. I've even tried to motivate my students to use it as a personal tutor. There is ZERO interest from students in doing this. Like, I specifically taught this in my class, and I believe 0 of my 150 students have gone on to use this on their own. I dunnow, maybe in the future it will change. B

Oculus sold 20 million Quest 2s. Obviously a lot are gathering dust, but the interest is there.