You make it sound like you can get only one or the other (either a high CADR or a true HEPA filter).

For home use, consumer devices can give both. You can have a high CADR together with a true HEPA filter, matched to your room size.

But I don't have a dog in this fight. If you want go with a not-as-good filter and make up for it in volume, knock yourself out.

Anything that uses true HEPA quality air filters.

I think the obvious counter to an influx in bug reports / pull requests is to have the first layer of review of bug reports / pull requests to be AI as well.

Final remains humans.

I dunno, if that's how people vote, that's how it should be.

Though there is a big question of how they plan to run a vote with multiple options. I hope it's a Condorcet system to avoid the risk of watering down one side with similar competing options...

The phenomenon of "rich getting richer" is characteristic of all free markets during times of economic health. It's an easy thing to demonize but simple practical realities make this inescapable.

At its essence, acquiring wealth requires making investments (which could include building businesses just as much as buying ones that already exist). Making such investments requires capital. People who don't have any can maybe get a business loan, but that puts a harsh upper limit on how much they can earn from the investment. Wealthy people have a lot more that they can invest, and so they stand to make a lot more from their investments.

Wealth is THE ladder to attaining wealth. Ordinary jobs are just a means of keeping bread on the table while building initial capital to get in on the investing. Some specialist jobs can pay pretty well but not well enough to make the kind of money that we associate with the super rich.

The thing is, if we take away the option to "get richer," then people who have capital won't invest it, which means they won't be creating jobs or delivering value, which leads to the downward spiral of unemployment, deflation, and economic collapse (Exactly like what we saw throughout the 1930s). So if we treat "the rich getting richer" as some sort of problem that needs to be solved, we risk breaking the backbone of the economy, and pushing nearly everyone into poverty.

We could possibly remove some of the legal loopholes that allow the super-rich to skip out on taxes, but that is supremely hard to do since the super rich hold tremendous political power, and can independently lobby such attempts into oblivion. Even under democratic presidents, such efforts get no traction.

So for now, "the rich getting richer" isn't really a sign of economic mismanagement so much as "standard operating procedure" for a functioning free market.

Oh, but surely they'll win, they indicted [strike]a ham sandwich[/strike] this man! And the Trump administration has such a spectacular record with high-profile prosecutions thusfar...

That is not what they found. What they found is that if you spend 60 minutes doing the homework with AI, you learn approximately as much as someone who spends 60 minutes doing it without AI. If you spend 20 minutes doing it with AI, you learn as much as someone who spends 20 minutes doing it without AI. Etc. The only real difference is that the AI people get way better homework scores, and as a result, tend to stop spending as much time, and thus tend to learn less.

That's what this preprint study found.

100% this. Even a short 5-minute quiz with just a couple questions at the start of each day will do the trick. But you simply can't rely on homework scores to be a proxy of learning or time spent studying anymore. Brief daily quizzes on the previous day's material will force them to.

Also, It's not like students have the excuse of, "I couldn't study, I didn't have anyone to explain X to me" anymore. The very AI that they might otherwise use to cheat on their homework can also explain to them the things they missed in last year's algebra class that are blocking them from learning this year's calculus, or whatnot. Congrats - you now have an infinitely patient personal tutor who will spend hours dumbing things down for you until you get it. Now you have no excuse - learn the material. It becomes all about actually putting the time in.

Yeah. There's been widespread misrepresentation of this (preprint!) in the media. What they actually found: test scores correspond to how much time you spend doing homework, regardless of whether you use AI or not. Which should not be a surprising result! Of course, the AI people, esp. those who had been using AI for more than a few months, stopped spending much time on their homework, and then their test scores fell to match the non-AI users who didn't spend much time in their homework either.

The TL/DR is, in today's age, you cannot use test scores as a proxy of how much time a user is studying or knows the material.

There are of course some caveats, beyond the fact that it's just a preprint - notably that there's nothing to separate why the user started using AI to do their homework, so there's potential confounders in there. For example, if a student is in a poor family, maybe they had to get a job to help pay the bills. But working a job itself can lower test scores - for example, having to work late the night before an exam. So there are some confounder problems with the study. That said, I'm sure the general conclusion is correct: time spent doing the thing = amount of learning the thing (relatively independent of what tools you're using in the process).

If eliminating homicide was the only effect the cameras had, I would consider it. But the cameras also enable all kinds of harmful abuse, as has been reported many times right here on slashdot.

Most crime, including violent crime, is a consequence of poverty driving people to desperation. Maybe we could find other ways of bringing that down. Like better education for the poorest areas and other forms of assistance that get people working again and eliminate the desperation. It might not be easy, but it's surely better than making ourselves so extremely vulnerable to the kinds of abuses that mass surveillance enables.

You seem to have confused my post with someone else's. Specifically:

"but other systems are worse so you should be happy with what we have"

I never said nor implied "you should be happy with what we have."

criticizing the current system and calling for change is the equivalent of lobbying for some other system

I never said nor implied that calling for any change is lobbying for some other system.

You're making a number of assumptions

No I'm not, you are reading into my post a whole lot of things that I didn't say and don't agree with.

First you are assuming that the system you have is the system you think it is.

What does this even mean? Are you trying to say that America isn't actually a Capitalism? Without some elaboration, your statement doesn't make any sense.

Second you are assuming that it cannot be made better or changed any way,

No I am not! I absolutely think that we can and should perpetually monitor and modify it as needs arise.

Third, you are assuming that the system you have today is the same system you had 10, 20, 100, or 200 years ago.

No I am not. Where in the world are you even getting this? A huge number of economic changes have happened over the past 200 years. I know this as well as anyone.

For an increasing percentage of Americans, life is getting worse and worse financially...

Your final paragraph is a total topic change seemingly stated as an argument. Or something. All I did was answer a specific question from rsilvergun. It wasn't my intention to write an essay on how we solve the issues related to wealth inequality in America.

"Socialism" is a broad word that refers to an entire family of different systems. It's not "one thing," and there isn't a single definition for it. There is just a loose group of common elements shared by all the different things that share the label, the main one being collective control over the means of production. (see here for more info).

So it isn't reasonable to say that this is "the best system" without specifying which version you are referring to and citing specific places that have fully implemented it for a long time and show signs of sustainable thriving.

Incidentally, Capitalism is, at its essence, "private ownership of the means of production" (which is to say, people can own businesses). If you allow this, then what you have is Capitalism (possibly with other regulations on the side). If you don't allow this, then what you have is not capitalism. Maybe you were thinking of allowing private ownership of some businesses but not others? Or something else?

I feel like I'm in a constant race to flee enshittification : Used to use Cursor (it's still my only option at work), but then Musk bought it, and they instantly went in on hard-sell tactics. Switched to vscode + copilot + OpenRouter, but was getting concerned about API costs. Just yesterday I set up a Tencent TokenHub account with their Max package, which required that I switch off copilot if I wanted to be able to use some models like Kimi K3 (had a temperature=1.0 requirement, copilot doesn't let you set temperatures and hardcodes them to very low), so now it's vscode + Pi + TokenHub.

Sigh. Please don't make me move again...

(Not that Tencent is in any way "the good guys"... but they're also providing a very generic product)

If capitalism can't even solve something this fucking simple what is even the point?

"The point" is that it's the best system we have, despite its problems.

The alternatives have, historically, led to mass starvation and bloody revolutions in relatively short order. This will predictably happen again if they are attempted, because they violate human nature too strongly.

Be that as it may, technological advancement has always been the game-changer. If anything stands any kind of chance at enabling humans to thrive, sustainably, under a communist system, it will be labor automation (including and especially AI).

Ah, the good 'ol "No True Communism" argument :)