No. It isn't. The OP is suggesting that metrics collected while in school do not correlate to performance in the field. Everything in the summary, including your quoted snippet, refers only to how the new free-range, grass-fed students do "about as well" in their classes and graduate about as often. If that's your only criteria, that the students stay in the field long enough to pay for a 4-6 year degree, then success! But you leave open the bigger, and perhaps more relevant question, of how long they remain in the field and how well they do later. And that, as the OP suggests, is conveniently difficult to follow up on.

I SOOO wish Musk would consider forcing them to take that pill. Not wise, I know. And not gonna happen. But one can dream, right?

Does this not, effectively, do exactly that?

https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobi...

Ah. Thanks for that. I either knew and forgot for never knew.

IMO, this feels like the biggest FU Biden and his administration could give to Musk. It feels sudden, intentional and full of malice more so than genuinely pushing for progress and competition. I mean I understand the idea behind this, but if that were really a driving force it would have been from the beginning.

I'm going to assume that's true for the original disclosure but I have my doubts. Regardless, that's clearly not the case for this particular article.

The fact that Palo Alto Networks provided an *exclusive* to CNN regarding the hackery was made very clear upfront and Palo Alto Networks was specifically called out by name EIGHT times. What wasn't so #@$!@#$ clear was which piece of software we might all be concerned about. It was mentioned ONCE in the summary, but I had high hopes it received more prominence in TFA. Nope. Not the case.

Is this true? I suspect you're right, but I watch these foreign (to the states) shows specifically for that commentary and viewpoint. And I've been assuming I'm getting some of that cultural visibility we so desperately lack here in the states. But this summary has me questioning all that. :(

Yes it is...and it's not the part just before the kitchen model breaks apart (which I think is the part they, or at least the writers of that article, would like to lead us to believe). It's the crappy part after that where you can CLEARLY tell it's "AI" simulated human motion that doesn't look at all like an actual human.

I've asked myself that same question a hundred times. Or, more specifically, "why does the backslash in Windows piss me off so much?" or "why does using a forward slash for command line parameters equally set me off?".

And I have no answer other than "it just does". And I'll be damned if I can make myself get over it.

I know it's a gross oversimplification and completely misses historical context, but given the fact that so many other mainstream syntaxes have evolved to using forward slashes as path or element separators (URLs, for example...literally "universal resource locators"), I just cannot make myself use a command line interface that instead forces me to separate paths with a backslash.

It's just, unnatural I say. What makes it unnatural? I can't say. It. Just. Is.

Yes, they are. In fact, I'd argue they are even larger that traditional public spaces like those "Hear Ye" street corners or market squares from the days of yore.

They *ARE* public spaces by everyone's natural expectation. Anyone can pull up a Facebook page and read what someone says there. It is, by definition, NOT a private space.

The problem we're all struggling with here is unique (or at least relatively new) where a private company controls what is, effectively, a public space. There has been no precedent for this before. Newspapers and TV stations had the public reach of a Facebook or Twitter feed but they controlled the content 100%. The general public couldn't just walk onto the set and say whatever they wanted to the entire world any time they wanted. But now they can...and that's different. Very, very different.

Section 230 is completely confusing to me in that it provides liability protection for the content providers while allowing those same providers to decide, based on their own objectives and goals and interpretations, what gets distributed and what doesn't. If they are allowed to make those decisions, then they need to be held liable for what they allow to go through. It's their decision to make...so they should be liable.

OR, they aren't held liable (as I believe they should not be) BUT they do NOT get to decide what gets published and what doesn't.

I don't understand why anyone thinks they should get to do both. And I would genuinely like to understand this better if anyone can enlighten me.

You misspelled psychopathic. Sociopaths are considered to have at least some empathy and sense of conscience.

And posting CPU benchmarks, not benchmarks from any of the other hardware.

While I do agree with the basis of your objection, I'm having a hard time crying foul too loudly.

Truer words have never been spoken. I'd mod you up but I have no points today.

I guess that sorta answers my question...I assume there's some standard "public key crytography" distribution methodology that can be used to ensure that the key you received from the host is really the key the host originally sent.

I honestly don't know...thus the post. How does one (as clients of Zoom) know that Zoom isn't just doing a man-in-the-middle key swap on you as you establish this "secure" channel? Is there any way for both ends to know for sure that it's really their public key the other end received during negotiation when both clients and the server between them are under Zoom control?