The guitar amp that went to 11 was designed such that 1, 5, 10 all meant the same thing as regular amps, and 11 was overdriven to produce distortion.

The reason was that the only other way to get distortion at the time was with a modified amp. Which was fine in the studio, but for touring bands that doesn't work because you have to have a bunch of amps that will all sound the same with the same settings.

You were going good, and then you repeated some false bullshit in a pejorative voice that you merely heard and repeated, without understanding.

Can't watch crows from the basement kiddo, you might have to gird your loins and head Outside to look over the fence.

Crows do not sleep in flight. Surface Dwellers know where they sleep. If you happen to see one, you should ask about it.

But... watch out for mutants.

You can only distract a crow with a shiny once in awhile.

But you can earn loyalty every day with payments of dried papaya.

Not worthless, but pretty cheap.

I suspect this will be the future, but not before things get much, much worse.

I am exceptionally skeptical that your characterization has any basis in reality.

I suspect that your university changed its policy, and your proposed reason is merely what you heard people say about it. People who weren't involved in the decision-making and didn't consult whatever public information might have been available. Instead, they made a statement of hyperbole that fit their preferred narrative. And you credulously repeated that characterization as if it was a statement of historical fact.

Critical thinking is dead, and apparently, so is education.

It's pretty simple, you'd be an idiot to use an energy-inefficient algorithm like an LLM for spell-checking or grammar. Syntactic analysis is a long-solved problem that can be done efficiently using traditional algorithms that produce repeatable results without any plagiarism. The recommended replacements are syntactic corrections.

The point at which an LLM has been used is the point at which an LLM has been used. I hope that clears things up for you.

LOL wait, what?!??

Yeah, testing is easy, it's okay if it has some rough spots on the edge cases... right?

If it hasn't actually been exploited then it hasn't "hit" anybody.

Why isn't this +5 yet? Shameful. They should bring back meta-moderation.

If they're not intelligence, why is making them fearful going to change that? Isn't the basic behavioral prediction that their decision-making will get worse when afraid?

If "fear works," why do workers with angry managers have lower productivity?

The evidence shows that many people still forget before the first coffee break, and their number exceeds the minimum threshold that makes attacks successful.

Critical thinking should lead to the realization that running the tests often enough to keep the problem in the spotlight is not sufficient to prevent the problem.

Technical solutions are required, but they come with expense. Both in equipment, and convenience. Until IT security is seen as a minimum requirement, it will appear as a sacrifice, and modern business decision-making isn't prepared for that. Once it is accepted as a minimum, then it is understood not to be a sacrifice at all, but useful spending and action.

I don't mind a "gotcha" test, the problem is when it promises something of value and is, in actual fact, sent by the person you thought it was being sent by.

In that case, it seems like they have to give the employees the thing, in addition to the training.

My advice to IT departments: Work with HR to identify a reward that you will give to all employees, and an additional reward you'll give to employees who pass the test. And then do the test, and everybody gets the promised reward, the people who clicked the link also get training, and the people who didn't get a (probably better) additional reward.

Otherwise, don't promise anything; trick them with something that looks like a business email, not a fake promise.

That's just it, and that's why it isn't possible to communicate with you.

I didn't "interpret" what you said. I read it, and used the meaning of the words as the meaning.

Now you're saying junk with a completely different meaning.

And that's probably not what you mean, either.

They're just excerpts from your right wing hate religion's media programs that were adjacent to the subject other people are communicating about. You don't know what's going on in the world around you; you only know what hateful hyperbole was spewed at the same time as words about current events.

You even admit it without realizing it; the argument you're engaging in is a mere detail to you. All you're doing is pointing at your virtue, as evidenced by who you hate.

"We added cruft again and again, surely that's what programmers do to make a language better!"

Yeah, you're right! It got even worse when they realized they did need those things, but didn't want to change the architecture to be like other languages. Why do other languages do it that way? Because they're stupid! We'll just tack it on in the least obtrusive way. Sure that's better than having architecture that's built around the algorithms everybody else knew we'd need....

So you're disputing even that it was true? You're as arrogantly stupid as he was!