The use of AI as a tool for people who can do the work themselves makes sense, but the use of AI by young people so those young people don't have to know how to do anything is the problem. Back in the day, you were allowed to use calculators once you got far enough into math classes that doing the basic stuff wasn't the challenge, it was the setting up of formula to solve the problem.

They look for excuses for why this or that isn't going well, but the basic problem is that teaching analytical thinking and problem solving is something they wait on until too late. Children need to be taught the idea of problem solving, not just "how do you solve the following in mathematics?", but more, "you are trying to do this, can you figure out the steps needed to make it happen?" Without teaching problem analysis for things outside of mathematics, we get generations of people who couldn't figure out how to do ANYTHING on their own. Aiming to make the entire generation a bunch of people who just do what they are told is why we have the majority of people at risk of even basic uses of AI eliminating their jobs.

They also look at social media for a number of problems, as though that is the reason children have emotional problems while their parents are out working two jobs each and the children are left alone most of the time. Being a "kid" is difficult enough, school, social circles, or a lack of real friends, the list goes on for reasons why most kids will feel depressed and even hopeless when they can't EXPECT that doing well in school and college will get them a job. The idea of, "why even try doing anything when it won't help me?" is a good reason for kids to be depressed, and socializing is the only distraction from life seeming to be full of misery.

So, teach analytical thinking, and get an education on how to solve problems...that's how you get children who will have a decent chance of a career that AI can't take away for at least then next 20 years.

Engineers need to remember that time exists.

You have three months to teach a teen how to control a robot with a microcontroller.

OK, how much of that do you budget to CS and assembly?

Month 1: Architecture and data structures? You have 18 40 minute periods and maybe homework assignments.

Half of the class won't even gain mastery in that time. By time your class is over they will still be having memory management problems.

So then you've failed to achieve the goal.

There are engineers who remember that time exists and for the rest we have engineering managers. Not ideal, just how it is.

To be sure engineering schools are doing a bad job at teaching reality. Even in a dx/dr environment, it's so weird.

What feature can just be enabled remotely the way you are complaining about? The issue is "when features with vulnerabilities are enabled, then going to a web page that can compromise the vulnerability might be able to do things". You just assume that all features can somehow have a vulnerability that will let a remote web page change the browser settings, and that's a STRANGE thing to ASSUME is happening.

I've never seen Firefox updates that just decide to change settings that I had put in place the way you are claiming, but if you are such a special butterfly that you feel a need for some fully cut down browser, go to command line lynx and be happy with the lack of graphics and potential things to compromise you.

Modular approach doesn't have to be plugin/add-on as the method. We aren't living in the 1990s, they COULD have it where features you disable in settings unload the feature from memory. This doesn't mean there isn't room for plugins, but when you have to compete, many people look at the features that come already included as their reasoning for picking one product over another.

I start by turning the old-school menu bar on, and go from there. It's not difficult, and easier to find things than the UI you find in Chrome or Edge.

Disable the feature in settings, and then you won't care. It's not like certain other browsers where you need to give an obscure command in the main bar to get to a feature to turn it on/off.

When almost every person wants a given feature, does it make sense to require it to be an add-on, or a checkbox to enable/disable the feature? The majority of the stuff you don't want can be disabled via settings.

Around 2029 we'll see that a ride is available for $16 or $31 with a driver.

Rider's choice. I'll guess it goes about 80/20.

He seems like a real scumbag but it's worth keeping in mind that the people who told us that have a massive incentive to pin their crimes on a scapegoat.

Since we pretty much know that FTX was the #1 donor to a party's political action committee with money laundered through Ukraine, he would have been smarter to wait for that conflict to conclude.

The people who benefited from the crime also prosecuted him which is never reliable.

It might not be FedSlop but unless it is proven that both parties didn't benefit we shouldn't trust this government either.

We do know that Ladybug Graham got $18M straight into his bank account from Ukraine so there is certainly smoke.

It's only since a dead man can't sue for libel that people are willing to print that nugget now.

Not in a Corporate Democracy.

The people who would prosecute OpenAI want to use OpenAI to maximize their power and wealth at your financial and legal expense.

Remember when they tried to extradite Gary McKinnon for twenty years for looking at a spreadsheet when he accidentally got RDP access to an unsecured NASA desktop with a simple Perl script? Intent is not relevant for prosecutors (mens rea should be an element in a Constitutional case).

The legal basis is there but the will to power is not.

Two systems of courts for different classes of people (yet again). It would be an error to call that a Justice System.

n.b. the Culture War psyop is there to try to convince you that the classes are something else.

If you look at the debates that do happen, Democrats do debate well, while you see the Republicans try to bulldozer their way through, without letting a moderator step in and keep order. That is why you saw Trump complain about things being unfair, because he is actually stopped from just ignoring the rules and rambling on with a lot of lies and misleading statements.

To Trump, if he says something that is a KNOWN falsehood, anyone who calls him out on that falsehood is being unfair. He calls so many things "fake news" that are actually correct, but don't cover up for his lies.

It all comes down to some basic mathematics. Now, before the modern Internet, every village, town, and city had a FEW people who were considered a village idiot, conspiracy theory nut, or "crazy". The local people knew who they were, and knew to ignore what those people would say. Then, the Internet showed up, and everyone got access. A strange thing happened, suddenly we saw just how many of those "village idiots" there were, all those small towns, or cities, the crazies started organizing. When the overall numbers get counted, they might amount to 10% or less, but when elections are often within 5%, that 10% would mean the difference between winning an election or losing it.

So, the Republicans decided to embrace that segment of the populace, and gave them more power than at any time in history, to the point you see people like Marjorie Taylor Greene actually winning elections and getting into office, and then getting reelected. Then, the rest of the Republican Party embraced them and let them get leadership positions. In the same way that conservatives have had control over the DNC(you see it when Joe Manchin was looked on so favorably while ANY progressive would have the DNC try to primary them out of office), the crazies have taken over the Republican Party.

And all of this is because both parties keep nominating bad candidates for elections, so you get an even split of people who are disgusted by both choices, so just vote on party lines. If people win by only 5%, that's showing a person who isn't accepted by a true majority of people.

Not engineered. He is always fair, but will not let a guest just run over him with non-stop rants or lies the way Fox would let a Republican. A Republican who is rational and will explain their views, then actually discuss potential holes will have no problem with anyone who "leans to the left" on shows. If you just start saying how you are right and keep going without an actual dialog, that's when ANY good interviewer will stop you. Weak people will let the other person just go on and on, even when they say factually incorrect things that have been disproven.

Not slowly. The Republican Party with their fanatical support of Donald Trump, have made a point of just doing ANYTHING, no matter that it violates the US Constitution, for Trump and to not stop Trump from doing ANYTHING.

The big concern is that Republicans are clearly working to rig the mid-term elections where they can, just because Republicans are down to a 35 percent approval rating with the majority of US citizens looking to get the Republican Party out of power at this point.