They're absolutely sandboxed. But the regulation still doesn't like them.

For what it's worth, segments of the govt mandate ipv6 usage. The Dept. of Energy has done so. Which actually causes problems for large installations of legacy and specialized equipment such as particle physics labs. Trying to get many many old embedded devices to talk ipv6 just because it would be nice to do so isn't worth doing when you're in your own non-routable address space anyway.

They come from Denmark, not China. Oh wait, we hate Denmark now too, I forgot! Because annexing Greenland is on the todo list.

The evidence is on my tests, when students who used AI (or Chegg or whatever) to not think at all about the homework or classwork through the semester hit an exam and can't do jack without their helper.

The student evaluations are then filled with indignation from those same people who whine about tests not covering the same thing as the homework. When in fact many homework problems are recycled as test questions: but they abdicated the chance to learn by actually working to do so, in the process developing no skills, learning nothing, and not even recognizing the test questions as something they once pasted into a chatbot.

You could argue that this isn't testing "cognition". Fine. I'm not in the business of teaching cognition, I'm in the business of teaching problem solving skills to students, disguised as learning how Mother Nature runs the universe via the laws of physics.

Well, only if you want to call, for example, all the math classes and CS and chemistry etc "outside the major" for purposes of (in my case) a Physics Major. In your case, you probably don't want your EEs getting a degree without math, physics, and CS for example.

I think the real question here is "what fraction of a major is lib Ed stuff?". At my school, it's 30 out of 120 credits for everyone (EE included). To be fair, many majors require more than the minimum "120" credits anyway, decreasing this percentage. And many of those "30" are satisified with the required math/cs/physics/chem etc anyway. So in practice it's closer to 15% "random fluffy crap" than the 25% it appears to be on the face of it. And all the physics and EE majors I work with actually look forward to the random Jazz Studies class as a place they can coast for three credits while fighting with Digital Signal Processing or Quantum Mechanics in their day job.

It just finished it's tenth anniversary as a game, so it's well established - lots of reviews (the video is an ad for their holiday season giveaways). Fun, the higher levels are a bit too pay to win though. But a well done 15v15 tank battler overall.

I'd be really curious if you can dig up any (non-AI) videos of Clinton or Obama endorsing AfD or sieg-heiling at the inauguration? Certainly they didn't abolish the US's foreign aid program leaving millions of kids to die while letting the aid rot on pallets in warehouses, for example. Any one of those things (let alone the shambolic DOGE thing) would have poisoned any brand.

Umm... no?

If you're going to be convinced that people are making shit up, at least get things right about what they're making up: maybe sit down with Kepler's law, a pencil, and Gauss' law?

If you do so, you get the ad hoc model that matches observations in most galaxies pretty well. That's very not constant, and in fact very centrally peaked, because the radial velocity distributions are only constant in the outer reaches. It's the density distribution that provides the gravity to make the radial velocities do what they do.

One can also start with more similar dark and luminous matter distributions and run them forward in time to get this, so it's not just a magical solution, it's something you get from orbital dynamics over time. Details of galaxy formation are still fuzzy, but the end result that we see is perfectly plausible - mostly because dynamical friction increases rapidly as the density of stuff increases, so you lose more orbital energy inthe core and stuff clumps up more there.

ahh wait, I see. You're still thinking that somehow Dark Matter isn't in the solar system. It can be (and probably is), at the same density needed to mess with the rotation of the galaxy. However, (tiny density)x(tiny solar system volume)=not enough mass to show up in orbital dynamics. On the other hand, (same tiny density)x(galaxy sized volume) adds up to way more dark matter than "normal" matter in our galaxy.

Just because we don't know what the stuff is doesn't mean we don't see it doing stuff. And it's doing stuff that's consistent with a soup of stuff that interacts via gravity and not electromagnetism. That's the fun part of science! There's something going on we can see happening, now we get to figure out what's going on.

huh? 27% is kind of a lot. Also, it is distributed unevenly. Don't need a theory for that, you just go out and map the stuff by seeing what it's doing to spacetime. Here's one famous example, but there are gobs. You don't need crazy theories to account for clumping. Gravity tends to clump stuff up. You see that with "normal" matter in galaxies (clumps of matter, which happen to mostly be dark matter), for example.

All of that works in spades for plasma, it's charged! E-M fields steer that stuff around like no tomorrow.. But it's not stars that make up much of the mass out there, it's all the interstellar (and inter-galactic) stuff, outweighs stars by a lot.

The solar system is a small place. The density of Dark Matter needed to explain galaxy rotation curves or large scale structure in the universe can still exist in the comparatively tiny solar system and not contribute enough mass to mess up JPL hurling probes around.

Replying to myself to clarify: weak interactions between WIMPs (or whatever) drive friction in denser areas, like inside stars or cores of galxies. However, you don't even need the weak force for "dynamical friction" to cause things (stars, WIMPs, whatever) to lose orbital energy just through gravity alone.

"normal" matter, even at interstellar medium densities, clumps up because of electromagnetic forces: stuff runs into other stuff. The ideal gas law and all it implies works just fine at astronomical densities. Then mix in the fact that there's a lot of plasma out there and magnetic fields, and you've got lots of ways for astrophysical stuff to interact. Observations of happenings out there (across all the wavelengths) match the theory pretty well, to the point of being homework problems in an undergraduate astrophysics course. Although the "surface physics" explanations of how chemistry works on the surface of dust grains to run reactions to produce the organics seen in nebulae has always seemed something of a magic black box to me: but perhaps you might find it more comprehensible with your chemistry background.

Spot on! It is all around us at a low density. However, it does appear to clump some on galaxy-sized scales: even rarely interacting via the weak force applies some orbital "friction", enough to make the dark matter density distribution in a galaxy "cuspy" rather than uniform.