You been trolled son.

Sadly too true. But they're bigger!

That's last year's video. This year's video is linked from the summary. I haven't watched it yet, I'm just pointing out that you are being critical of the wrong thing.

Surprise, click with two fingers executes a right click, and it feels *way* more intuitive than having a separate button.

Actually I know multiple PhD and Masters graduates who studied AI at Canadian and US Universities that have gone on to work for the top-tier online poker companies. Some of them work in Ireland, where Full Tilt's HQ is. Not China. It is run like any other business over there, not some shady racket. I also know for a fact that employees are not allowed to play on live servers.

I presume if they were not afraid of being arrested and hassled some of these companies would setup shop in North America. It would make it easier to attract talent.

I think the original comment was on target. The point is, at an Apple store, when you have decided to buy something and the store is busy, there is no obvious way to be sure your purchase will be handled in priority sequence. There is no line. There is no "take a number". There is just "wander around looking helpless till someone comes over to you". I shop there and have had this experience numerous times.

Sometimes I just want to pay; please let me register that intention so that I can relax and wait my turn.

Because you are taking the time to think this through, I'd like to point you to the well-established research field of voting theory.

It's actually quite interesting. There are many criteria an election might hope to satisfy. Provably no voting system can satisfy even a small set of desirable criteria (see Arrow's impossibility theorem). However, in my view (and many others), the methods that consider all pairwise elections seem in some sense to be the fairest according to my own personal aesthetics. These are called Condorcet methods. They are actually even used in practice for some things, some even in the open-source community.

All I heard over and over was "customers keep telling us they want it". What I didn't hear was "this is the best phone we have". No contradiction. Giving customers what they are asking for is hardly rocket science. Not like they are replacing other products with the iPhone.

Laziness has nothing to do with it. It's kindof a hard problem. The solution is worth billions. Trust me, Google really does not like the amount of spam sent from their own accounts that clogs their own services and defraud their own users. Defeating these bots is a high priority for them and everyone else. Each of these companies is basically an army of geniuses. It's a hard problem.

It always seemed to me that this was a poor argument. Twins have so many incentives, explicitly and implicitly to differentiate themselves and not just *seem* different but *be* different. It seems the example of raising two animals/people in parallel is vastly different than doing it sequentially.

If only there was some way we could study nurture/nature in this way with something that is not human, and therefore could pass an ethics approval application at a research institution. It might give us some insight into development.

It's not a matter of "working fine" vs. "not working". GP point (I think) is that it works just as well as it always has. The problem isn't that the immune system's performance has changed.

The point of this thread was that the students who did not cheat may have principled grounds to feel wronged and to take official action if they are compelled to rewrite the test.

What of it? My point was that there is a formal expectation that if a student does not cheat they have a basis to object to re-taking an entire examination.

Also, I don't know exactly what is meant by the honor code. We never got an "introduction to honor" when I started university. In fact, I learned the penalties of cheating when I was actually a sessional lecturer. I was blown away that a student could be expelled, which would also mean no other university would ever accept them, for a very broad definition of cheating.

I don't know this exact situation, but it is very common to pass down previous notes, exams, and assignments to friends/relatives if they take the same course you took. The acceptance by the professor of this could range from encouraged to expulsion-worthy. For example in linear algebra and calculus the library stocked the last 5 years worth of mid terms and final exams. (questions and answers). In other courses the faculty re-used *exact* tests and assignments year after year so you even knowing some of the questions from a previous year gave a huge unfair advantage...

Sorry I digressed. Your comment didn't make sense to me and thinking about it dredged up all these unhappy memories about the arbitrariness of these punishments.

Usually a course has what my school called a ROASS document: responsibilities of academic students and staff. This document outlines how many assignments there will be, roughly when they will be assigned and due, number of examinations, the relative weighting of each of these, penalties for cheating, etc.

This document helps the students plan their term because often they are taking 4-5 heavy workload courses. If all of your courses are backloaded with big projects or exams, you may want to replan your semester. The document also protects students from lazy profs who fall behind and would then dump 3 assignments on the students by surprise at crunch time at the end of term, or from inventing course projects at the last minute, etc. Also from shifting weight to the final exam with short notice because their students did too well on assignments, or because they bombed the assignments, etc.

If a student lives up to his/her responsibilities as outlined in the document, but the professor does not, the student has grounds to file a complaint. Extreme cases are needed for anything to come of it, but it definitely happens. More often you would talk to the dept head and he might have a chat with a rogue professor who is abusing their students.

I don't know about fashionable, but perhaps necessary if you want to do science. It seems natural to model the behavior of most things as a function of a) initial conditions b) input c) randomness/stochasticity. For fixed initial conditions and input, you can model the distribution of outcomes. Then you can model how that distribution changes as you change initial conditions and inputs. Eventually you can look at behaviour and hypothesize about its causes, perhaps making changes to the initial conditions or inputs in the future to try to achieve better outcomes. OR, sometimes even better, realize that the causes of the outcome are not distinguishable from the randomness and therefore cannot reliably be changed. Maybe there is a small probability that people just turn out to be serial killers. Tough, deal with it.

That all seems pretty scientific to me: not computer scientific, just scientific.

I don't see an obvious alternative approach, for people that want to model/understand the behaviour of the organism. Not a scientific one, anyway. I mean we could just say it's too complicated and we can never understand/model it, which may be true. But that would just mean we don't have a tight enough model of either a) the initial conditions b) the inputs or c) the randomness. And perhaps we never can create models that are good enough to be useful. That's a question worth answering, and one that science can address.