Let's be clear about the nature of education. Before a student reaches a particular level of self-discipline during their formative educatoinal years, homework is assigned because it is an effective mechanism to have them practice the concepts being taught to them, and to do this outside of the structured classroom environment. This activity promotes the crystallization of learning objectives and prepares the student for the next lesson, which builds upon the previous.

After a student becomes largely self-sufficient, the homework model becomes less about enforcement through grading, and becomes more about preparing the student to manage their own academic development outside of the lectures and office hours. The student goes to class because they understand they NEED to be there to learn, unlike a child who must be TOLD to be there.

In this regard, whether or not homework is graded, and whether or not a student feels a need to cheat or take shortcuts with homework, is really just a reflection of the student's maturity and sense of responsibility for their own intellectual development. Typically, a professor should not need to police what a student does on their own time; what matters is the ability to certify that a student has met the learning objectives--and that is done through examination.

So, what I find disturbing is not the question of whether this professor should grade his students' homework, or whether the students are using AI to do their homework for them instead of actually learning the material. As the old adage goes, cheaters are only cheating themselves--at least, that's what I would still like to believe.

No, what I actually find most disturbing is this apparent disconnect in the professor's views on the future of AI as they pertain to professional mathematics, and the impact of AI use on the education of humanity. He predicts that AI will be better than professional human mathematicians, and I think this belies a deeply mistaken perspective on the purpose of learning and doing mathematics, one that I am extremely surprised that a working professional mathematician would make.

Even if AI models far exceed the human capacity to prove theorems, will it ever FEEL enjoyment and excitement about doing mathematics? Because if it can't stir something in you, then why do it, and why bother teaching it to others? Why would you ever need to teach another student, if you could just always ask a computer instead? In fact, why will anyone in the future ever need to learn anything, if AI will be the replacement for our brains?

I am a human being and I feel. I dream, and I love. I love mathematics, and it is not simply the result or the answer that I love, but the entire process. The struggle, the failure, the questioning and working away at it until at last, there is UNDERSTANDING. And the flaw that I see my fellow humans are making, over and over, is this crazy focus on RESULTS. ANSWERS. GOALS. They seem to have forgotten how to enjoy the process of doing things, whether it is the restoration of a classic car, or composing a musical score, or deciding what to cook for dinner.

I mean, why spend months and months on taking apart a 1957 Buick engine, lovingly cleaning every component, repairing and sometimes manufacturing replacements, and reassembling it? Why, when you can have a new electric car that is far safer and more efficient, with more functions and conveniences? Let me be clear; I don't work on classic cars or have any experience with automotive mechanics. But even from my outsider's perspective, I instantly know, at a visceral level, why they do it. It is for the love of the process; to take this machine and build it with your bare hands so that you have a complete understanding of it; and that this machine is an embodiment of engineering, aesthetics, and a symbolism of the freedom of movement.

That's what AI will not, and will never, do. It can't fall in love with the process, because to do so is what it means to love learning, and is part of what it means to be human. And for a professor of mathematics to not appreciate this is, to me, very misguided, and does not bode well for the education of future generations.

These were $1.25 headphones being sold for $70-$80. This was in 2019, not sure if that was before or after Bose.

I needed to pick up some cheap headphones on vacation a few years back. Went to Best Buy and decided to pay a little extra for what must be the better headphones, the Skullcandys. They were some of the worst headphones I've ever heard. Not "bass-heavy", just tinny, metallic sounding, and uneven throughout the range. Dollar store quality, for a premium price. Never again.

When I had Comcast in the SF Bay Area, it was rock solid. Did not go down for months (or years) at a time. However, other people in the same city found it to be unreliable.

Why can't Spectrum give me a symmetric connection? I get ~700Mbps down and only ~36Mbps up.

The problems are not technology-related, they are policy decisions.

At my last house, I had fiber with a 700Mbs down/700Mbps up connection, but every evening between 10:00pm and 11:00pm it dropped out for 5 minutes.

One other thing I forgot to mention. I'm skeptical that this "AI startup" actually did what it claimed to do, but since I have no evidence either way, I reserve my judgment until more details are given.

If the startup can't or won't provide evidence, that in itself is suggestive of some kind of fraudulent behavior meant to hype up the company, a la Theranos/Elizabeth Holmes. But in so far as the underlying scientific principles are involved, the strategy seems plausible. I just don't know if this company actually did it.

So I only remembered a little bit of the virology of phages from what I learned in school--namely, that they infect bacteria and that they are everywhere. And when I saw some of the early comments posted here that were big on knee-jerk reactions and scarcasm but small on actual science, I decided to read the Wikipedia article.

Phages don't infect eukaryotes; they only infect bacteria. And phage therapy has been successfully used to combat antibiotic resistance in humans, although the problem of resistance in general remains. This makes sense: bacteria replicate rapidly and have relatively little in the way of proofreading mechanisms, so when there is selection pressure, they mutate and develop resistance very easily, even to phages. So engineering a phage to target an antibiotic-resistant bacterial strain might work in the short term, but unless there's a way to cultivate phages that are able to adapt in response to (and not simply target) that strain, the strategy is intrinsically self-limiting.

To those comments drawing ill-informed comparisons to engineering viruses that infect humans, know this: phages are literally everywhere on this planet. They are far, far more abundant than bacteria, and most people can appreciate how ubiquitous bacteria are. You already have phages inside of you, and in fact, they form an entire ecosystem. Same thing with bacteria--you have bacteria all over and inside your body. You have more bacterial cells coexisting on and inside you than you have your own cells. And what's more interesting is that these phages seem to be protective by helping to maintain a balanced microbiome.

The concern I have with engineered phages is not that they would be harmful to the environment or to us, or that they could mutate to be harmful. That is extremely, extremely unlikely, because such a concern doesn't reflect an understanding of how phages actually function in real life and how they co-evolve with the bacteria they infect. If anything I would be concerned about spreading bacteria that become extensively resistant to antibiotics and phages. Thus we need better education about what phage therapy is, and to ensure that study participants are adequately informed of the potential risks and benefits. The direction such therapy would most likely need to take is quite similar to CRISPR and other gene therapies, in that it would need to be a form of personalized medicine. If we can develop computer models to help perform this personalization more efficiently, then I'm for it; such an approach may also prove useful for treating cancer.

Sorry, Mr. Russian Bot, but I am pretty sure you have that backwards. These days, Russia is losing 8 soldiers for one of Ukraine's.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/...

It's only Trump who is calling for the ceasefire.

How much protection does SELinux provide for this vulnerability?

Do they have to prove this? Or just obstruction?

Of course, if there was no investigation (as DHS has said sometimes), then what was he obstructing?

Frankly, the idea that the government can search the phone of a citizen at the border is an abomination in what is supposedly a free society.

Judges have engaged is so much doublethink about borders. This was an airport, so how was he not already in the USA when the plan landed?

Precisely. I alluded to this in my previous comment, but you give very simple and specific examples of this phenomenon.

Other examples with significant impact:

Ability to borrow money is almost nonexistent for the poor, except for usurious rates such as in payday loans or credit card interest. An absolutely astonishing percentage of Americans carry a balance on their credit cards from month to month, and pay interest on that balance. And the poorest Americans can't even access credit. This inability to borrow at a favorable rate impacts major purchases that would, in the long run, save enormous sums of money, such as financing a home or an automobile. A home builds equity and doesn't enrich a landlord. A car lets you commute to better jobs and saves time otherwise wasted on public transit.

Fines, fees, and consumption taxes as a proportion of income are vastly higher, and there is no legal recourse. Late on your credit card payment because your employer didn't pay you on time? The bank doesn't care and you don't have money to sue your employer, not to mention they might just fire you. Sales tax is extremely regressive; 8-10% makes no difference to the well off, but regularly stops the poor from being able to afford basic necessities--and many state/local governments continue to seek increases in sales tax in order to make up for budget shortfalls as a result of their own lack of fiscal discipline.

What bothers me is how the wealthy class is always quick to point out how much "assistance" is given to the poor, but when it comes to the poverty tax and actually having an equitable playing field in economic affairs, they are dead silent. And the middle class eats up this narrative, because they don't want to believe that they have more in common with the poor than they do with the rich. Most Americans are one health emergency away from bankruptcy. Most cannot afford to lose their job. Yet so many believe that they should direct their anger at the poor for "being lazy and taking the benefits their taxes pay for," when the truth is that the truly wealthy have rigged the financial and political system to pay almost no taxes and steal far more tax dollars than all of the poor are ever given.

It is a kind of mass delusion perpetrated by the rich in order to sustain their wholesale theft of the wealth created by the entire working class, and the fact that so few of us have woken up to this reality is what makes me want to scream.

What this allocation seems to suggest is that study participants who receive UBI feel compelled to distribute some of that income to their loved ones, because they too need assistance, and doing so improves their social circle's quality of life in ways that are not so material as buying goods and services. Therefore, if UBI were made available to everyone in need--and not just to study participants--then such redistribution would not occur at this rate.

What I've noticed with these studies is that critics of UBI and other forms of social safety net programs frequently come from entitled backgrounds. They have never known poverty and have formed this narrative of poor people "wasting" the money they earn or receive as the reason for their poverty. They can't understand why poor people don't just "find a better job," or "stop eating so much food," or "find a cheaper place to live." They look at the world through their own lens of plenty, and don't see how society severely penalizes the poor for simply being poor and extracts from them additional financial costs that the more fortunate do not have to pay.

In the same vein, there is this insidious undercurrent of elitism in the criticism that UBI recipients need to have their spending monitored and judged before they are entitled to it, because it reinforces this false narrative that poor people are poor because they don't use their money "wisely." Meanwhile, we have a billionaire class that truly wastes their obscene wealth on luxury yachts and monuments to their greatness. If anything, it is the poor--who have lived the experience of scarcity and have to decide every day what is truly meaningful in life--who should be entrusted to wealth, because every day they feel the tremendous pressure, anxiety, and insecurity of not having it, and therefore know how important it is to make sure that others do not suffer the same.

So when they give money to their friends or family when they barely have enough for themselves, you KNOW they aren't doing it frivolously. Unlike billionaires, who only love themselves, they know how important it is to share with the people you love.

I saw a thumbnail on YouTube from CBS or ABC, one of those state media apparatuses, of the jumping car. It was so obvious just from the thumbnail what this thing was, and why it was all over the media.

I vowed to quit asking myself questions like, "Do people really buy this?", But it still amazes me to see that they do. (Buy the hype, not the car)

You can find some used for around $39k now. Likely to crater further as the quick-n-easy loans come due, and they get repo'd.

I doubt they float or are bulletproof, though.

They apparently gave it some Muslim name, Ahmed or something, and dressed it up in what must be their idea of "gangster" attire: wifebeater, large chain.

So they thought it was funny not only to commit the sexual assault, but dress up as a lower-caste Muslim while doing it. Speaks volumes as to where the problems in that country really are.