"For an assignment testing students' ability to make evidence-based arguments, they participate in a simulated school board meeting about banning books. It involves debating chatbots designed by Zeleny with names like the Confrontational Parent."

This a VERY thinly veiled parallel to a hotly divided political issue that teachers/unions [and chatbot trained bias] tend be on one side of and the majority of the public, parents, and truth on the opposite of. Given that adults of the highest levels of performance in our society, be it professional achievement, economic achievement, political achievement, IQ, and education disagree on the matter it sounds like what the teacher is likely testing is alignment with her own ideology and not evidence-based arguments.

I saw the same thing in many of my own courses, examples and material used in classes [especially logic classes like critical thinking] that taught and test concepts through distilled 'analogs' to popular political issues with an attempt to appear neutral and present both sides while actually presenting a weakened strawman of one side the argument and consistently that strawman was on the same side. Cleverly these were not the topics for essays where students spent effort on time and research and independent thought but the class examples that most would never look at additional material on... simply walk away believing they formed a valid independent judgement at the pinnacle of their own education.

The Canadian province is named after the lake, not the other way around.

Because the name pre-dates both countries:

https://ictnews.org/news/trump...

It has nothing to do with being cowards, they are robots. It's a case of saving a little money at the expense of being excluded from a lot of money.

Piracy laws are very effective... for curbing intentional piracy in businesses because they have too much to lose to break laws like these and they are basically robots with instructions to follow the law.

But they won't outlaw these, what they'd do is prohibit companies that use them from government work/contracts and the government gives away WAY too much of our money to give that up.

To store what?

A single document?

1.44MB isn't going to get you very far these days

EA had a Simpsons game that they killed last year. A friend had been playing it since the beginning, and she was actively upset about it.

The problem with these "freemium" games is that they cost the company money for people to play... bandwidth, storage of whatever data they're collecting, etc. ... so once you get to the point where the "whales" aren't spending stupid amounts of money to buy your "premium currency", you now have the casual players costing you money.

One solution would be to reduce to tracking and bandwidth, and maybe start deleting accounts for people who haven't logged in for a year or more. ... but that takes developer time, so costs money, too. So they just kill it outright.

It's pretty damned sad... I miss being about to spend a few bucks for a game (eg, Plants vs Zombies) and able to play an actually fun game, instead of some game that's going to try everything it can to get me addicted and decide I need to spend money to level up faster or get some special character (eg, Plants vs Zombies 2)... or even worse, the "how many ads can we get you to watch in the 15 minute break you took to play a game"

Some of these games might be salvageable if the addicted players coughed up $10 a year or something to keep playing... but they'd probably still need to trim back how much bandwidth and whatever it takes... and set up a billing system, etc.

It's a shame, because there have been a lot of games through the years that had absolutely no reason need an online component (other than to get you to try to hook your friends into playing, too), which meant you couldn't play them when flying or whatever... and now they're just completely dead.

https://xkcd.com/386/

There was advice years ago that if you wanted an answer on QA sites, you should ask the question with one account, then give a wrong answer with a second one... because people usually don't care enough to help, but they WILL post to say that the first answer is wrong.

Because the editors pick items that people are going to "interact with" and get "engagement"

https://xkcd.com/386/

Just like every other article that asks a yes/no question

If the answer was yes, it wouldn't need to be a question

"Inside stores, shoppers will see iFixit toolkits and parts on shelves..."

This is a chance how? They've had the toolkits for years at the one near(-ish) to me

My former boss used to say that he knew enough programming to be dangerous (and sysadmin, etc)

But he knew it, so he left it to us professionals to do the work most of the time. AI just gives people the tools to be dangerous, without them actually understanding much of anything. And any jobs to clean up their work will slowly be learned by AI to do a good enough job most of the time until that one critical disaster happens.

Luckily, I was working for NASA, and they have rules for critical systems.... but most companies don't. And it's only a matter of time before someone figures out how to poison the AI to leave back doors or whatever other vulnerabilities

The cycle is more like:

"The economy sucks because of too much regulation, I can make it better!"
(things seems to improve for a while, but they relax too much regulation and destroy the economy)
(other side gets elected to clean it up, and spend years trying to fix it)
"Remember how bad the economy was under that other side? I can fix it!"
(and then we re-elect the party that keeps crashing the economy) ... this last time the candidate actually said "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?". Yes, yes I am. I may not be employed now, but it wasn't the middle of a pandemic that you made worse by telling people yo rise up against measures trying to help hospitals get a handle on things and forced states to compete against each other for supplies... then stole them.

Realized that the company was over valued, then used their stock to buy up Time Warner and such, so they actually had a legitimate value to their stock.

Of course, Yahoo tried it, too, but that didn't exactly pan out for them

It has nothing to do with Citizen's United. It's a push by some groups (likely people who control corporations) to try to claim that corporations should have rights that we give to people.

If you give freedom of speech to corporations, then truth in advertising laws fall apart.

Corporations can have free speech once someone can figure out how to apply the death penalty to a corporation. Until then, it shouldn't have the rights of people.

Let's consider for a moment:

Imagine if a corporation can outright lie to you about what they're selling, and then claim free speech when they're found to be lying.

"Made in America!"
"Gluten Free!"
"Does not contain rodent droppings or insect parts above the legal limits set by the FDA"
"Will not cause hair loss"
"Does not cause birth defects"
"Will not record your sex life and then put it on unsecured servers" ...etc.