Exactly. There are many different learning styles. (One issue I had with school is I don't learn like most people - several learning disabilities/issues - so I'm aware of the differences and how things need to be altered, but for most students, yes, repetition within that first 24 hours is important.)
I haven't been in the classroom since close to the year 2000, so I don't remember the study names. What I do remember is that there were studies, plural - studies, that showed that when you learn how to do a new task or learn new information, that using that information or practicing the task within 24 hours increases the chance of it being remembered by a large percentage. That's over 25 years ago for me, and I'm not going to claim it's at a certain percentage, but I know it was WELL over 50%. So if you learn a new process in Algebra, or a new move in ballroom dance, and you don't practice it within 24 hours, you have a lower chance of remembering it. But it was at least over a 50% increase in your chance of remembering it IF you reinforced it by going through it within 24 hours.
I preferred to use homework as practice - not as learning new material (although that might help if it includes reading for the next day's class). I also worked in psych treatment, which meant I taught more than one subject - I had the odd mix of science and math plus English (lit and grammar). So I'd assign reading overnight that gave us more chance for discussion (discussion, not lecture!), and the math I assigned was to use what we had learned in class. For science, I'd actually prefer to assign reading for what we had done that day, compared to what we would do the next day. That way students found the reading easier, it went faster, and they'd bring in a few questions the next day that we could review (before moving on to new material).
When I grew up, I was forced to go to a prep school where we had 3 or more hours of homework a night, plus we were required to stay for some form of athletics, so I rarely got home before 6 PM. With that in mind, I was selective about homework. For the time I was teaching in public schools (as opposed to my time teaching in treatment), the dept. heads and supervisors jumped on me for not giving enough homework or for assigning science material we had reviewed in class - pretty much everything about my homework system offended the dept heads or supervisors.
Ads? Never saw that many, now I only see ONE on the page at all.
Guess you haven't heard of Brave and are still being tracked all over the internet,then.
Well, that isn't too hot. My kiln, in my barn, was running a firing last night that got just about that hot for cone 6 pottery and it can do cone 10, even hotter.
It'll take more than a furnace that can do what the average potter's kiln can do before it sounds impressive.
Ah - yes, I did misread it. Jobs did push people and created the Reality Distortion Field, but he could not have gotten much going without Woz.
And, yes, I was talking about Woz' accomplishments.
You're correct that Woz is brilliant, and did brilliant things, but it's completely incorrect to discount what Jobs did.
But what did he do that actually counts as innovation? What new did he bring into the world?
Some of his logic designs were amazing. I was learning digital logic when I got my
I can't remember other examples, but his habits of having to keep chip counts down, so he could make what he wanted when his family didn't have a lot of money, came through in a number of ways in his designs.
Plus Jobs was little more than a used-car salesman.
Hmmm...
That's being a little bit harsh.
He sold *new* cars!
They really should be honoring Steve Wozniak instead. He's the one that did the work, did the innovation, made a floppy disk drive work for a price lower than anyone else could imagine by innovating. He's the one who did the designs and made it all possible. But Jobs was more visible and knew how to capture headlines.
Seriously, Jobs and Apple would have been NOTHING without Woz doing the kind of stuff he can do.
Clicked to update my password - now the Plex site login won't work at all. I don't mean it won't take the new PW. I mean you can't get the login page.
Not surprised, really. So freaking many bugs in Plex that never get fixed I've questioned their code quality for a while now.
If Software is subject to the same copyright law, then does this mean that AI-generated software is also not subject to copyright?
Copyright absolutely applies to software, and this ruling doesn’t change that. If a human authors software, it remains protected under existing copyright law (17 U.S.C. 101). The real question is whether AI-generated code qualifies for copyright at all. If a model spits out code entirely on its own, then based on this ruling, it probably wouldn’t be copyrightable. But that’s not how most AI-assisted development works. Tools like GitHub Copilot still rely on human developers to modify, structure, and refine the output. That might be enough for copyright protection to apply—courts just haven’t ruled on it yet.
Yeah, that's the position of the copyright office.:
If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it.[26] For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt[27] from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material. Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist—they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output... As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.
In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.”[33] Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection.[34] In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself.[35]
The guidance goes on to instruct applicants for copyright registration to "disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content in a work submitted for registration and to provide a brief explanation of the human author's contributions to the work" and "AI-generated content that is more than de minimis should be explicitly excluded from the application."
... Dr. Thaler argues that the Copyright Act’s workmade-for-hire provision allows him to be “considered the author” of the work at issue because the Creativity Machine is his employee. Thaler Opening Br. 52-56; 17 U.S.C. 201(b). That argument misunderstands the human authorship requirement. The Copyright Act only protects “original works of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. 102(a). The authorship requirement applies to all copyrightable work, including work made-for-hire. The word “authorship,” like the word “author,” refers to a human being. As a result, the human-authorship requirement necessitates that all “original works of authorship” be created in the first instance by a human being, including those who make work for hire.
Specifically, the employer (including corporate entity) of a employee who creates a work for hire is the legal owner of the copyright, but they are not the author. The employee is the author, and ownership passes to the employer by law.
But it's like doing your own appendectomy. Legally, you can do that, too. But it's a terrible idea, and you are likely to make mistakes that are permanent and unfixable.
Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine
