"It is clear Flock has aspirations far beyond ALPRs to become a digital platform for policing," [emphasis mine]

They misspelled, "Orwellian suveillance and harrassment."

Law enforcement officers are already abusing Flock's existing capabilities for stalking. This will not improve matters one iota.

My understanding of the idea behind common core math is that their goal was exactly that students should develop an understanding of math that would allow them to easily spot all the different ways they could do such calculations easily. I think the problem was that a lot of their methods come from people who understand the concepts already and think that their methods are nicely illustrative of the concepts, but who don't grasp that they only illustrate the concepts if you already actually know what's behind them. Then you end up with the reality with the boxes, counting, colours, etc. where the actual students mind is reeling and they're saying to themselves "what the hell is going on here, why are we doing this!" even more than with the way it was previously taught. It's even worse when they expect the student to "show their work" with by drawing the boxes, ribbons, whatever for themselves. That's just adding 40%+ to the time of each problem when the student isn't thinking about math at all, they're drawing the same boring thing over and over on autopilot. It's not like that kind of thing is entirely new of course. I mean, thinking back, I wish I'd had a unit circle stamp and a stamp pad. Because, seriously, what was the point of drawing it over and over and over? Once you'd done it a few times, it was just a waste of time to draw it yourself. So, basically common core took that sort of thing and magnified it.

", so you already need your driver's license in most states, so you probably. have to have your wallet. "

Uhm my drivers license is also on my phone.

Others have noted that the article wasn't claiming that AI is the reason that math skills are atrophying. Also, it seems to be all in how you use it. The AI has gotten mostly good enough at this point that it can be a pretty good math tutor. I mean, it's maybe more like studying with a friend who understands the material pretty well, but still misunderstands some things about the questions. But, it's a friend with infinite patience. For some students, it will help them learn far better than a teacher or math tutor leaning down their neck. Of course, that's not going to be the same for all students. They still have to want to understand the material.

They're not so bad, they just define things like "it is easy to see...", "clearly", "it suffices to show", "recall that..." to mean completely different things than normal speakers of English or, well, language.

As a parent, you've got to be careful with that one. There's a set of people who tend to be the ones where most people start blaming, and they typically live in the same home as the children. Of course, as you point out the common core math stuff was terrible. It does sound like your kids at least had a textbook? Many parents had to deal with their kids just getting handouts and the only lessons on how to use the "ribbon diagrams" etc. being given to the students directly in class making it impossible for the parents to help (or consult the non-existent textbook, or write the author, etc. The worst thing about the common core stuff is that the actual goal by the creators was to help kids to really think about math to make it easier, but they made it tedious, boring, and stressful. I mean, the example you gave of 20X14 is exactly the sort of thing common core is supposed to help with. They're supposed to look at it, recognize that it's actually 2X10X14, do the easy 10X14, then double that.

All that said though, if your eldest is going into grade 12 and really only has 3rd grade math, you really need to start tutoring her yourself, and don't worry about doing it so she can "show the work" for the school. Same for the eighth grade student. Her actual grades in math are basically irrelevant to her actual education at that grade level so it shouldn't matter if the school has a problem how she shows the work.

Do you mean a bibliography? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds like you got most of the way through a degree without having to put bibliographies on your papers. I'm not sure if that would be ironic given that you're complaining about the slipping standards for kids these days or if it would back up your argument.

Critically short career fields have Selective Reenlistment Bonuses (SRB). Those careers that are critically undermanned, have extremely long training programs, or require unique skills (SEALs, submarine nuclear technicians, cybersecurity, critical language linguists, etc.) will pay bonuses to entice members to reenlist.

The bonus is calculated by the member's monthly base pay x number of years reenlisting x SRB multiplier. An E-5 earning $4000 a month that reenlists for 6 years in a career field with an SRB multiplier of 3 could receive a SRB bonus of $72,000. This bonus is paid with 50% at the reenlistment and the remaining partial percentage paid each year. Reenlisting for 6 years would give 50% at signing, then 12.5% at year 2,3,4,5.

SRB bonuses are normally highest at the first reenlistment time frame. Members that reenlist for 6 years to get the maximum bonus are usually advance to the 10 year point in their career and at that point most of them will normally continue to the 20 year retirement without needing an added incentive. A critical career with a SRB multiple of 3 during the windows of 4-6 years might drop to an SRB bonus multiple of 1, 0.5, or 0 for years after 8.

Ragebait isn't about seeing what the other side says.

It's about seeing an inflammatory caricature of the other side.

For example, a Liberal isn't going to see some Conservative discussing some of the hard tradeoffs we'll need to pay down the debt. They'll see a Conservative proposing that Trump be given a 3rd term and trans kids get rounded up and forced into conversion therapy or some crap like that.

Meanwhile, Conservatives won't see some Liberal discussing the economics of Universal Healthcare. They'll see someone proposing that the police be defunded and all drugs are legalized.

Ragebait creates echo chambers because it gives the false impression that everyone on the other side is insane.

It's a fun conspiracy theory, but this is actually just how biology works.

There's basically four kinds of things that can go wrong with our bodies. Infections, mechanical issues, system errors, and cancer.

Infections we can cure by helping the body to kill off the infection, it's only some rare stubborn ones like AIDS that are chronic like you describe.

Mechanical issues we can fix with surgery.

System errors? That's stuff like genetic disorders where our body creates too much of hormone A or doesn't create the proper form of protein B. The problem is in our DNA and you can't cure it without rewriting our DNA (which we're getting to).

And then there's cancers, which are similar to infections, where we try to kill it (as they're doing here), though weirdly, some research suggests treating it as a chronic issue might be better for the patients.

In either case, it's not the fact that pharma is deciding "don't make a pill to cure it, just find a lifetime treatment!". It's only in the past few years that we're reaching the point where we can actually cure things that were traditionally chronic.

Knowing how not to do a thing is also valuable. But just in general there were lots of emails, Strtegy documents, etc that would be valuable as how to make this thing even if the data inside is bad or the decision made on it was bad. Plus the customer info is valuable. Spirit tried to maximize extra purchases while keeping low initial costs. It failed eventually but the internal metrics at what was working and what was not would be very useful. They didn't immediately fail.

Makes sense, early internet there were all of these free or discounted things you could get just by signing up and giving some info away, The value was usually 10 cents, Minus the crazy offers like $50 coupons from Buy.com or other loss leaders to get attention.

True, in fact it might give a word-for-word translation round trip, which would defeat the purpose of trying to get rid of the watermarked phrasing.

Without knowing exactly which phrase in a 10-ish page document is the watermarked phrase, you would have to hope the translating round trip would remove or modify the phrase without introducing translation or logical errors. Overall I don't think using Google translate would be as helpful as he hoped.

If we step outside just books for a moment, you're talking about destroying all of Van Gogh's paintings as well as paintings in all kinds of experimental forms like pointilism and fauvism, The Thinker, by Rodin, and frankly a huge assortment of archeological works in museums. If we do want to look at books, you would destroy the Great Gatsby and Moby Dick without a care.

These various works are, or were rare and were, at one point, widely considered to be crap. These days, all of thee things are quite valuable. Original copies of Moby Dick and the Great Gatsby that are in good shape with original dust jackets, etc. are worth tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I think the problem here is that you seem to be saying that the courts/law are insisting that the books must be destroyed for it to not be infringement, but that's not quite what happened. The court did use the fact that the scanning was destructive as an argument, but it wasn't required. In a common law system, it is problematic that it does imply a new rule. This mostly comes down to a question of nuance.