Reposting due to censorship.

This premise seems rather insane for multiple reasons:

1. London remained significantly more polluted throughout the entirety of the study. The effects of the NPI had only marginal impact on pollution levels yet the spread of NO2 levels between London and Luton started out and remained enormous... London retained basically double the pollution level of Luton throughout the entirety of the study period. In relative terms the shrinking delta between them was tiny. London started out at ~35 NO2 and Luton ~15... London ended up at about ~28 NO2 vs ~13 for Luton.

I suppose there could be some kind of very specific magical threshold of NO2 pollution in children by which such effects could just happen to materialize yet absent extraordinary evidence this isn't a reasonable conclusion. The more reasonable conclusion is NO2 at the levels measured don't have any statistically relevant effect on expiratory volume within the constraints of the study.

They in my view are being intentionally dishonest throughout by the continuous use of relative change between London and Luton instead of simply referencing absolute numbers. They are leading the reader to make assumptions that are inherently nonsensical BS.

2. There is at no point in absolute terms any year measured with a difference in expiratory volume that exceeds the CI between London and Luton. There is no statistically significant difference yet the paper and the TFA keep pretending otherwise by invoking the same relative vs absolute trick as for the NO2 levels.

3. Comparing people living in huge cities with 20x the population of a much smaller city is BS to begin with. You compare like to like especially given well known lifestyle differences that directly impact health.

Don't believe marketing bullshit. There was an awesome video of someone shooting a model of the bluetti power station with sodium batteries when it was turned off. The cells shorted out, caught fire and made quite the flame thrower / fireworks show.

I think the obvious counter to an influx in bug reports / pull requests is to have the first layer of review of bug reports / pull requests to be AI as well.

Final remains humans.

I dunno, if that's how people vote, that's how it should be.

Though there is a big question of how they plan to run a vote with multiple options. I hope it's a Condorcet system to avoid the risk of watering down one side with similar competing options...

They are trying to say in London which started out and remained more polluted than Luton throughout the entirety of the study period reached parity with Luton in terms of expiratory volume of children.

This premise seems rather insane for multiple reasons:

1. London remained significantly more polluted throughout the entirety of the study. The effects of the NPI had only marginal impact on pollution levels yet the spread of NO2 levels between London and Luton started out and remained enormous... London retained basically double the pollution level of Luton throughout the entirety of the study period. In relative terms the shrinking delta between them was tiny. London started out at ~35 NO2 and Luton ~15... London ended up at about ~28 NO2 vs ~13 for Luton.

I suppose there could be some kind of very specific magical threshold of NO2 pollution in children by which such effects could just happen to materialize yet absent extraordinary evidence this isn't a reasonable conclusion. The more reasonable conclusion is NO2 at the levels measured don't have any statistically relevant effect on expiratory volume within the constraints of the study.

They in my view are being intentionally dishonest throughout by the continuous use of relative change between London and Luton instead of simply referencing absolute numbers. They are leading the reader to make assumptions that are inherently nonsensical BS.

2. There is at no point in absolute terms any year measured with a difference in expiratory volume that exceeds the CI between London and Luton. There is no statistically significant difference yet the paper and the TFA keep pretending otherwise by invoking the same relative vs absolute trick as for the NO2 levels.

3. Comparing people living in huge cities with 20x the population of a much smaller city is BS to begin with. You compare like to like especially given well known lifestyle differences that directly impact health.

Probably more artificial post training bludgeons to keep models from getting stuck and burning through tokens.

This is what I love about Winco not putting up with bullshit. Any store that still accepts credit should at least charge transaction fees for using it. Credit has gotten a free ride on all of our backs for long enough.

Oh, but surely they'll win, they indicted [strike]a ham sandwich[/strike] this man! And the Trump administration has such a spectacular record with high-profile prosecutions thusfar...

One of the things I loved about the pine phone was the ability to boot from sd card. For something like foreign travel the ability to swap cards and boot a whole different image would be perfect.

That is not what they found. What they found is that if you spend 60 minutes doing the homework with AI, you learn approximately as much as someone who spends 60 minutes doing it without AI. If you spend 20 minutes doing it with AI, you learn as much as someone who spends 20 minutes doing it without AI. Etc. The only real difference is that the AI people get way better homework scores, and as a result, tend to stop spending as much time, and thus tend to learn less.

That's what this preprint study found.

100% this. Even a short 5-minute quiz with just a couple questions at the start of each day will do the trick. But you simply can't rely on homework scores to be a proxy of learning or time spent studying anymore. Brief daily quizzes on the previous day's material will force them to.

Also, It's not like students have the excuse of, "I couldn't study, I didn't have anyone to explain X to me" anymore. The very AI that they might otherwise use to cheat on their homework can also explain to them the things they missed in last year's algebra class that are blocking them from learning this year's calculus, or whatnot. Congrats - you now have an infinitely patient personal tutor who will spend hours dumbing things down for you until you get it. Now you have no excuse - learn the material. It becomes all about actually putting the time in.

Yeah. There's been widespread misrepresentation of this (preprint!) in the media. What they actually found: test scores correspond to how much time you spend doing homework, regardless of whether you use AI or not. Which should not be a surprising result! Of course, the AI people, esp. those who had been using AI for more than a few months, stopped spending much time on their homework, and then their test scores fell to match the non-AI users who didn't spend much time in their homework either.

The TL/DR is, in today's age, you cannot use test scores as a proxy of how much time a user is studying or knows the material.

There are of course some caveats, beyond the fact that it's just a preprint - notably that there's nothing to separate why the user started using AI to do their homework, so there's potential confounders in there. For example, if a student is in a poor family, maybe they had to get a job to help pay the bills. But working a job itself can lower test scores - for example, having to work late the night before an exam. So there are some confounder problems with the study. That said, I'm sure the general conclusion is correct: time spent doing the thing = amount of learning the thing (relatively independent of what tools you're using in the process).

If you need to squint to see nav instructions on a smartphone you probably shouldn't be driving in the first place. I've never once had any issues with what you are saying. Best of all you can change and update software and hardware whenever you want rather than being stuck with whatever vendor malware comes with a given vehicle.

WTF are you talking about? What mass murder did Konovalets do?

Full of shit as usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You can't counter my statements because they are true trivially checkable facts. You simply have nothing to say.

All Russia is doing is culminating its own destruction.

The Russian world and its Nazi infested alcohol fueled slave culture are not a "race". Hilarious you have nothing to say.

I find it puzzling you would think it strange or even noteworthy some Ukrainians would choose to ally themselves with the enemy of those who have been severely oppressing and intentionally starving millions of Ukrainians to death. What does it say about Russia when allying with Nazis against Russian oppression is viewed as the lesser of two evils?

After all the USSR itself sided with Adolf Hitler during WWII. They even carried out the joint invasion of Poland together like true besties. It would only be after Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back the USSR would change their tune and came groveling to the allies. Even then after all of that a million Russians would join forces with the enemy during the German occupation of their own country.

Meanwhile in present day Russia the former deputy prime minister of Russia is on tape popping Nazi salutes and Russia has openly Nazi military formations such as Rusich and former Wagner group whose very name comes from a Jew hating German composer highly celebrated by none other than Adolf Hitler himself.

Russia is a pathetic third world shithole of a gas station in the process of pointlessly wrecking itself. By his own public admission Russia's leader is bored and wants action and excitement in his life so I guess millions of Russians need to live in misery, die and suffer life changing injuries as a result. What a pointless waste of lives, resources and potential. It is understandable why Russia and Belarus have the distinctive honor of having the worlds highest density of alcoholism.