Well, I can see that you never made that experience. I have.

Indeed. People with a good education have _options_. And that means they do not have to take crap. Obviously, quite a few assholes do not like to have that type of person around.

It really depends. As degrees in the US are a big business, there are many worthless degrees and many that you can get easily, making them worthless if you did it the easy way.

Funny thing. The largest private (i.e. for profit) University in Germany currently has problems because many students find the degrees are not valuable and they do not learn a lot. No such problems with the regular ones. I think commercial education is just broken because of perverted incentives.

Getting a degree does not absolve you from really learning and being good at things. I think a significant pert of the people with degrees that have trouble finding jobs did select "easy" ones or took it wayyyy to easy getting them. Commercial "education" will make that easy, but you waste your time and money that way.

Because people without degrees are often just envious.

I routinely ask my part-time students why they chose to get that degree after all. It is "need more skills for my job", "no career options without that degree" and sometimes "I really want to know more about things". This mostly students that are interested in IT security though, no idea how representative that is.

The degree isn't about "getting a high-paid job", it's about knowing what the hell you're doing once you get a job. Although, fair enough, it's quite plausible that not many degrees would meet that standard either.

There is a possibility of a short-circuit causing an engine shutdown. Apparently, there is a known fault whereby a short can result in the FADEC "fail-safing" to engine shutdown, and this is one of the competing theories as the wiring apparently runs near a number of points in the aircraft with water (which is a really odd design choice).

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that (a) the wiring actually runs there (the wiring block diagrams are easy to find, but block diagrams don't show actual wiring paths), (b) that there is anything to indicate that water could reach such wiring in a way that could cause a short, or (c) that it actually did so. I don't have that kind of information.

All I can tell you, at this point, is that aviation experts are saying that a short at such a location would cause an engine shutdown and that Boeing was aware of this risk.

I will leave it to the experts to debate why they're using electrical signalling (it's slower than fibre, heavier than fibre, can corrode, and can short) and whether the FADEC fail-safes are all that safe or just plain stupid. For a start, they get paid to shout at each other, and they actually know what specifics to shout at each other about.

But, if the claims are remotely accurate, then there were a number of well-known flaws in the design and I'm sure Boeing will just love to answer questions on why these weren't addressed. The problem being, of course, is that none of us know which of said claims are indeed remotely accurate, and that makes it easy for air crash investigators to go easy on manufacturers.

Ah, so "stupid" is what you are going for. Gotcha.

Have a look at history. I recommend the French revolution, in particular. Point is, you can keep people in poverty, but putting them there is something that rarely works on mass-scale. If it has ever worked at all.

Do you think about what you write or do you just regurgitate all slop that comes to your mind?

Funny, how you use cheap manipulation techniques in your answer. Makes me think you have absolutely nothing except a big ego.

That will not work.

Are you being serious? I cannot tell. Stupid has been the name of the game too often recently.

Indeed. Hallucinations cannot be "turned off" in an LLM. At the same time, an LLM is not an intelligence with any reasonable definition of the term. It is also completely unsuitable to be used as an "agent", unless occasional completely wrong actions and a high level of vulnerability to attacks are not a problem. I do not see any practical scenarios where that would be the case, except as support for attackers. Attackers do not care if a high number of attack fail, they only care that some succeed.

"Nah" and "can do it at least for a straightforward question" do not go together here.

Incidentally, I was also commenting on the math aspect. You are obviously mentally deficient and only see the keywords that you want to see in a text.