How is it not AI? It's replacing a task that formerly required human intelligence with some artifice. Such tasks have been called AI for years, on and off. In fact the very first attempt at AI (the perceptron Mark 1) was an image recognition device.
Yeah, it was like that when I went, and it was a waste of money.
Ah whatever happened to human curiosity.
The debt you're talking about shouldn't be the result of four years of self-indulgence, but of preparation for a career.
I don't think I've ever heard of a degree in engineering called a "self indulgence" before.
But frankly put I'd rather not live in a society where everyone is hyperfocussed on where the next dollar is coming from. Work to live, no the reverse.
Wikipedia is not a trusted source
for someone who started stating facts with zero sources at all, you're awfully pedantic about what other people do. Back in the real world, wilkipedia has references.
why quoting it in any journalistic, scientific, or educational setting will result in an instant fail.
Firstly we ain't in one of those. This is more like a conversation down the pub. And second, what do you think stating "well known facts" which aren't without any citation will get you in those rarefied institutions?
More generally there is more pressure on kids these days. They didn't used to have to take on 5 or 6 figures of debt to get an education that is basically mandatory to do even entry level clerical jobs these days.
When I was an undergrad most people I knew at my uni were there to learn stuff about a subject they cared about. You know for it own sake. There were a few proto finance bros doing engineering because it could lead to a good finance job, but other than them no one was thinking about jobs specifically. I mean sure some engineers had a passion for motorsports and chose the more mechanical options and probably went on to work with cars, but it was all interest driven not job driven. Learning for its own sake because the expectation was there would be job, you'd get a job, your own place to live and go out into the world.
Because jobs existed and housing wasn't a pipe dream.
Now undergrads are all laser focused on immediate future employment and there's less learning for is own sake. Obviously this isn't an unwise choice given what 2026 is like, but it's sad their prospects are so narrowed and that does affect them.
If it needs done , what is your thesis that they should stop after the first semester. Would you fly on a rocket designed and built by people who could not fail?
This is nonsense basically, given the topic.
My undergrad university graded prelims (first year exams) but did not use the results beyond that. Everything graded was in a huge blob known as finals at the end of year 3 (then also year 4 by the time I arrived).
There were a variety of reasons this was the case. Degrees were traditionally determined by finals, and the people in charge didn't exactly have what may be known now as a "change mindset". Modules were just starting to come into vogue, but they didn't like the idea that undergrads could go into the last exam having forgotten and discarded lots of what they'd learned already. Also modules were new fangled.
And finally, because prelims were kind of irrelevant given the finals results. Anything learned in year 1 you will have gone far beyond by year 3. The later stuff matters more and is dependent on the earlier stuff anyway, so anything from year 1 is implicitly tested in year 3.
I was pointing out what I believe to be a well-known fact
This does not stop you being a hypocrite. First, it ain't a "well known fact". We're not in some sort of weird formalised debate so it's fine to state supposed facts without sources. It's just pure wankery to then complain when someone does the same but in disagreement with you.
FWIW wikipedia disagrees with your "well known fact".
Someone in this administration is making bank from Kalshi.
Donald Trump Jr. for one.
Excellent argumentation. I especially liked your sources.
Oh I'm arguing with a cockwomble. You provided none of those for our first claim so you're a complete hypocrite to complain that I also countered without them.
"OK, but what are gluons?" has been derided as "crank science"
I mean that's a harsh way of describing "string theory" but if the shoe fits...
Structures like DeLay-Bendebury Fibers and other models of what's going on behind the math are happening outside of Academia where Physics PhD's are discarded and PhysEd BA's are celebrated.
I have no idea what you're referring to, but people have been beating on string theory, quantum field theory and loop quantum gravity in an attempt to find something more fundamental from which the current maths can be described. It's not like people are not trying and publishing.
One could argue that string theory has become way too dominant despite having zero physical results but that's a different discussion.
Whichever model comes next will likely happen adjacent to the podcaster sphere and be reduced to useful engineering before Academics take a look at it.
No it will not. It's hard to describe how much it won't. Quantum mechanics and relativity have been tested to the absolute limits of engineering. The only thing observed that didn't fit was neutrino oscillation. For everything else what we have works 100%. That's the problem and why it's so hard to figure out what's underneath because there are no hints at what it might be due to deviations from the models. There are no deviations we are technologically capable of observing.
That also means it won't suddenly crop up and get engineered before academia "notices".
There are plenty of good researchers working in institutions but for fundamental revisions at this point they all seem to need to leave Academia and go out on their own seeking private investment.
Not this kind of fundamental research.
We don't get much from a jobs program for Mathematicians playing Physicists and it's very expensive.
This is arguably true! We have not got much physics out of string theory. New maths though, and one never knows when that starts to matter. Number theory was presumed to have zero possibility of practical use. We can see how well that worked out.
It's quite strange that most people find the status quo completely acceptable and are willing to throw another $100B at a higher energy collider but are unwilling to grant base-layer investigations that are nearly free in comparison.
There's a debate here to be had. Particle accelerators aren't great value for money, but (and here's the big but), it's the only way we know of looking for something that doesn't fit all of our theories so far. How do you trade that off?
If we believe the former head of Skunkworks they've recruited the best and brightest since the 1970's and had made breakthroughs by the early 90's in at least topological physics. So we get to pay for that but aren't allowed to use it which is intolerable
This sounds like bunkum.
As any anti-vaxxer like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr will tell you, if it's not 100% effective then it's useless. This drop in Hepatitis C cases can in no way be attributed to an antiviral medication. In reality, it's just people's natural immune system becoming more effective.
Do YOU see any raccoons in England? Clearly we ate all the raccoons and since they're so full of peptides it cured Hep C.
It does exist, and taustin made one, by suggesting UnknowingFool was too young and/or stupid to understand what cosmicl quoted. (Which I don't think s/he is.)
That's not ad homenim.
"You're a fucking moron therefore your argument is wrong" is ad homenim
"Your argument is wrong and therefore you're a fucking moron" is just an insult.
As for "hate speech," that's a construct invented by Soviet Russia (yes, really)
Firstly no it wasn't. Secondly, did you know that slashdot isn't exclusively right wing Americans so senile we've forgotten the cold war is over? The red scare isn't nearly so effective on the rest of us you see.
As far as I'm concerned, "hate speech" is not a problem since it doesn't actually exist
I'm wondering what other kinds of reality you claim don't exist.
Make it 10!
That is bad. As an engineer I'd probably want to make the plants able to handle them though, because you can't rely on people not throwing them in the bin
They're pretty good at handling them: they may easily have one or two a month that they put out without it being a serious incident. But every so often they get unlucky and the fire overwhelms the defences.
Ideally there would be some way to recover them. Maybe a recycling scheme where people can collect a small amount for them could work, although these days I think a lot of people are too busy to bother with it for only tens of pennies.
A deposit return scheme would work, though as you say it would have to be high enough to make a difference. Plus I'm convinced that selling reusable-but-actually-disposable prefilled vapes is a serious error of judgement.
Ah, I see. It's really bad that all those perfectly usable batteries are being thrown away, let alone the rest of the electronics.
No: way way worse than that. The problem is the batteries usually hold a substantial charge remaining and they cause fires e.g. in a baler or just getting caught in the wrong part of a machine, etc.
MRFs are quite adept at dealing with battery fires and have impressive firefighting kit, but every so often one of the fires will get away from them resulting in a £30-50 million pound facility burning to the ground.
Do a search (or better google image search) for "recycling centre fire".
I saw the recent London one, since the train went past it:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art...
https://www.letsrecycle.com/ne...
https://www.reddit.com/r/londo...
https://www.reddit.com/r/londo...
What's the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman? A used car salesman knows when he's lying.
