Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Nothing strange (Score 2) 209

Wait. You just put a broken unit back on the shelf where the working spares go? In a story you tell to strangers on the internet about your superior efficiency of process? How do you think the correct supply of working spares come to exist at an organizational scale if people just quietly go and do that? Especially with things that can be broken in non-obvious ways that's basically the single most annoying thing you can do to whoever is responsible for ensuring that a specified supply of spares exists.

As hardware, replacing a phone is only about as hard as replacing a ballpoint pen; so anyone who thinks that the real problem is that an authorized phone technician wasn't on hand to re-seat the connector has a screw overtightened; but would you just silently put empty pens back in with the new ones as a fun eventual surprise who whoever reorders those?

Comment Doesn't seem terribly surprising. (Score 1) 209

I'd be...worried...about the viability of someone who couldn't learn to read an analog clock fairly readily if they had reason to; but it doesn't seem nearly as surprising that a fair number of people wouldn't know how to offhand. Not only are analog clocks a lot less common than they used to be; my experience has been that a lot of legacy clock installs stop getting cared about well ahead of actually getting removed.

Your basic battery powered wall clock isn't that accurate and needs its batteries replaced periodically; so somebody needs to care reasonably frequently for it to be active, not on the wrong side of a DST offset, and not far enough off correct time that it's not very useful for things like start or end of class(passing periods vary a bit by school size; but you'd really want skew solidly under 5 minutes, especially if you are using similarly dodgy clocks at both ends).

The fancier whole-building setups with wall clocks that get pulse-per-minute or per second from a central control module are more likely to not be skewed randomly; and tend not to get rearranged because they are built in to the wall; but also tend to be comparatively expensive maintenance items that are a facilities problem, because they are attached to the building and some oddball 90s-looking cage of cards you need a weird serial pinout and some garbage software to talk to; rather than a cheap office supply, so when they do fail they often just get left there and ignored.

I remember there being clocks in classrooms for basically the entire time I was going through schools, and the period I worked in one; but in high school things had clearly started to break down(the permanently installed clocks were explicitly non-authoritative; individual teachers did or didn't supply a wall clock depending on their taste; so those were in mixed supply but generally accurate if someone cared enough for them to be present); and in college the wall clocks were essentially entirely vestigial; presence, absence, and function mostly a byproduct of when a particular building had been built or renovated.

I'm honestly a bit surprised that the classrooms still have enough wall clocks with low skew to be able to assume that students are getting time from them.

Comment Re:The Dissaperance of Literary Men (Score 1) 116

I'm not trying to keep track, I'm not even making a point to read women authors, but I've also been reading them all my life and hope to continue. I find it encouraging as well that I've never made it a point, yet some of my favorite authors are women. Not about what it says about me, but rather about them — that they are every bit as capable of being great authors.

I used to think I was going to track a bunch of stuff about me and refer back to it, but it turned out to be a pain and not actually all that interesting.

Comment Re:Innacuracies (Score 1) 65

They need to implement some secondary AI "fact checking" (how, I have no idea) to cut this BS out.

There is only one way, and it is human verification. A human can think and an AI can't.

They could improve the results by having it check itself, but it would not fix the problem. Same with using another LLM, which might fix some problems, but cause others.

Also of course a human would also make mistakes, so no matter what, you can't fix it 100%.

You can obviously find incorrect information with a normal search, but AI can give you incorrect answers both for that reason and that it cannot think.

Comment Re: The problem is that's the top, default answer (Score 1) 65

You can still to this day trust that Google's regular search results will contain your tokens.

You can not trust that Google's AI search results will contain your tokens. Further, it presents "citation" links which not only do not contain them, they do not support the statements they are connected to.

Both of those things are fundamental failures far worse than the problems with even the current non-AI google search results, let alone the older ones where they did less thinking for you and deciding what you want instead of listening to what you want.

Slashdot Top Deals

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson

Working...