Two tier policing is alive and well in the UK.

It is: right wing protests get the ultimate in soft touch policing, especially farmers. Protestors causing similar disruption but aligned left get massively harsh sentences. This two tier policing absolutely needs to end and the police need to crack down as hard on the right as they do on the left.

That way maybe the right will stop advocating for it.

...facial recognition will alert shop owners when a compulsive buyer enters, so that he/she can be approached at once by shopping assistants.

What shopping assistants? They got rid of all of them which incidentally along with a bunch of other "cost saving" measures made shoplifting much easier.

make no mistake, this technology will be deployed against ALL offenders

Haha no. It's just deployed against random people for no discernible, preventable or transparent reason. Bugs? Yeah no shopping for you. Shitty algorithm? Say hello to the police (also no shopping for you). Etc...

at the very least, to avoid misunderstandings, users of this technology should post bonds payable to people that are falsely accused and accosted by law enforcement.

Yes. Automated slander is still slander even if you got an algorithm to do it. And accusing someone of shoplifting is 100% slander especially if it causes harm which being thrown out of a shop very much is.

Well quite. Either making an AI by copying something is copying in which case they're a bunch of criminals ready to go to prison for a thousand years according to how it works for peons, or it's not in which case the Chinese are also doing nothing wrong.

They want it both ways,

Utter fuckers.

The students had a problem to solve, they used AI to solve it, and it appears to a very high standard.

If this happened in a work environment everyone would be happy itÃ(TM)s saved time and cost, and delivered a solution.

Because the goal/course is to learn a particular topic, not to use AI to solve basic problems. Yeah AI can do better than noobs at many tasks, but you don't become a non noob by using AI to do all the tasks. You remain a noob with AI forever.

The professor doesn't want the problem solved because he doesn't know the answer. It's not like your hypothetical job in that regard. He wants the students to learn stuff and get better.

By far the best people using AI are the ones that know their shit and have learned it and can use AI effectively but don't let it's slop shittiness dominate.

I took a few years of French, got a B being able to neither speak, write nor read it. Or understand it spoken. I could basically wing it on a few words and with what crossover there is with English. Didn't cheat, but frankly no idea what you have to not do to get a C.

mon pere est un poubellier

aw yeah he's still got it. B level French right there!

He was not by the way.

If everyone works against the system, the system has a problem. And the problem is not, that the students are cheating, but that cheating seems to be the best option for them ...

Define best I suppose?

The problem is a lot of students lack motivation to do the really hard thing, and are easily distracted. I was one of those, I would have been completely fucked in the era of AI I suspect. I was also at a university where I could get just the right kick up the arse someone like me needed and I had friends who ultimately helped.

I suspect cheaters wouldn't do great under the system I had with AI. Why? Well "homework" a.k.a. tutorial sheets were absolutely 100% mandatory and you went to tutorials a few times a week with tutors who knew you and would talk to you about the work and could ultimately kick you out if you didn't do the work. Unless you are good at bullshitting someone who can spot bullshit upside down, sideways and back to front you will be caught (collaboration is not discouraged in the slightest).

Exams are graded. You need to pass the first year ones, but they don't count to your final grade (provided you pass and are still there).

Problem with that system is it's expensive as fuck, requires deep institutional buy in and exists only in a few places.

Fortunately it kicked me into shape. By the time finals rolled round I had actually (for the first time in my life) put real hours into revision. I spent the whole summer grinding 3 hour maths papers under timed conditions then marking myself from the (often hilariously sparse and frequently hand scrawled) mark sheets which were available for old papers.

I did need to be motivate, taught and slightly threatened to reach that point. It didn't come naturally to me. It certainly benefited me however.

I'm having a bit of trouble working up any sympathy, as the saying goes.

so driver-assist isn't a thing.

I think you have misunderstood the OP. The cars are remote controlled with very fancy driver assist for the remote driver. IOW, they run on assist say 99% of the time and then the driver (remote, not a passenger) has to step in.

That feels like an odd thing to be frightened of. It's not Mars where there are minutes of latency. Why would the Philippines - specifically - be any more (or less) concerning than if the drivers were in a building a kilometer away from the vehicle?

Neither is great per-se: suspect it would be quite hard to pilot a car well using a remote link (eyes are still surprisingly good compared to cameras).

Secondly, yeah the Philippines is worse. It's 13000k away meaning ~0.1s lag just due to the speed of light, never mind network lag etc. There's also going to more of that due to more hops.

Thirdly, well OK, US driving standards are terrible and the test is almost impossible to fail so no real loss there compared to a Philippines trained driver.

Okay, I'm no fan of these things and wouldn't volunteer to ride in one but really, this is exaggeration. The actual safety records have shown they're marginally better than human drivers. Sure, there are outliers, exceptions and downright frustrating things like what this article is about but as far as I've had any information, they're just that... outliers. Human drivers are the ones I really worry about, personally.

But that also makes no sense: if they're safety record is barely better than humans, then they're basically the same level of worry.

I've long been putting forward the idea that self driving cars ought to be more safe, because humans are shit. But there's more it turns out than just direct safety. If they're causing real problems with emergency vehicles at a rate worse than humans, then that will cause harm, but not in the car crash sense.

Anyway whoever thought they're the future of city transport needs their head examined, frankly. Or really has a fetish for sitting in traffic.

The FSB is certainly getting a good ROI on their investment in Trump.

"Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco" gives me a mental image I just cannot shake...

.

And now we just give up and find ways to reword everything.

Google was better than Altavista when AV was a thing. Once the effective competition disappeared and the term "Google" became synonymous with searching, they broke their product in the name of "engagement".

The really weird part to me is why none of the modern alternatives (DDG, Startpage, etc) are better. How hard could it be to implement a hard "include only these words, exactly as I spelled them"?

> It can handle Multimedia as well as OSX

Found the Slackware user. The 32-bit Slackware user. The 32-bit Slackware 3.x user.

Have you used GNU/Linux since, say, 9/11?

Apple Hardware before 2012 cannot run operating systems other than those branded OS X or Mac OS X. While, technically, anyone who bought hardware before 2016 or so could be sticking with the OS that came with their machine, anyone with such a machine will get nagged and will not be getting updates to Safari.

The more likely explanation is this is bot traffic using older UA strings and SC's figures are BS.

OS X has been macOS for a while, and Apple, alas, makes its hardware obsolete after about 5 years (say one thing for Microsoft, they usually - recent TPM/Win 11 stuff aside - allow much older hardware run its latest OSes), so I'm wondering what's going on there. Are there really a lot of users of Macs from 5 years before whenever the rebranding started in 2016? That means a lot of people using Macs from before 2011. A huge number. Which genuinely surprises me. I have a Mac mini from 2014 and it crawls to the point of being borderline useless

So... maybe "OS X" is referring to something else? Maybe this is bot traffic using older user agent strings? I've never trusted StatCounter, I used to manage a set of websites that had millions of users across a relatively broad set of demographics, and what we were seeing via Google Analytics didn't remotely match what they were claiming. And by not remotely, I mean not even in the same ballpark.

The idea that they're not even checking whether the traffic is bot generated wouldn't surprise me.