The solution to that is AI. Finally, one-on-one tutoring becomes feasible.

AI to me is kind of like a self driving car... it would be one thing if the car actually drove itself and didn't require a licensed driver to sit behind the wheel and dedicate their full undivided attention to making sure the car doesn't do something stupid... yet no such thing at present exists.

You can take an Waymo in any of these cities:

• Phoenix metro, Arizona
• San Francisco Bay Area, California
• Los Angeles, California
• San Diego, California
• Denver, Colorado
• Las Vegas, Nevada
• Dallas, Texas
• Houston, Texas
• San Antonio, Texas
• Austin, Texas
• Atlanta, Georgia
• Miami, Florida
• Orlando, Florida
• Tampa, Florida
• Nashville, Tennessee

"may be AI slop" is a nonsensical statement, because if it's slop it doesn't matter who wrote it. Whether AI did the coding is not really relevant, although it is a more objective claim.

AI though, it really took a surprising and discontinuous leap in capability with Chat GPT 3, with application across soo many (most?) recognition and prediction tasks.

Including self-driving. What besides driving consumes so many hours and lives, and potentially remediable? I think it's probably the biggest AI application of the 21st century. Looking back the transition will seem faster.

Who's going to be able to scrounge up an extra 12KB of RAM in today's market?

Can you point at the place where you believe it says they had a permit to clear the forest?

They halted work promptly when notified the government was taking exception.

Anyway the whole story is almost devoid of the concept of legality, for whatever reason. Certain people are just sure it shouldn't have been allowed and want to see USA Big Tech heads roll.

Not 'no grades,' just grading of homework.

We shall see. I think not. Unless it turns out google had their legal ducks in a row, I think they will be paying an astouding, and record-setting, fine... maybe even if they did. For google, it's a terrible narrative at a very very bad time.

"in a few years, there'll be nothing human mathematicians can do that AI can't do better," Borcherds said. " Oh, that's sad. If history serves as a guide, it means we'll have to re-define math as "not intellience (TM)" and rationalize that AI is just brute-forcing it since DNN's are incapable of making novel generalizations (even though they do exactly that, constantly).

Yeah academic studies and surveys have a long and consistent record of failing to find any befit from IT in general:

- AI-generated answer (with direct quotes and cites)

1. Ng, Pan & Wilson (1998) Ã" Most businesses saw no revenue benefit ÃoeA majority (56%) indicated that their presence on the World Wide Web did not produce any noticeable change in their turnoverà The study also found that approximately 31% reported increased turnover, while 13% could not identify an effect. Citation: Ng, H.-I., Pan, Y. J., & Wilson, T. D. (1998). Business Use of the World Wide Web: A Report on Further Investigations. International Journal of Information Management, 18(5), 291Ã"314, p. 310. Information Research Full paper (PDF)

2. Hitt & Brynjolfsson (1996) Ã" IT investments did not necessarily increase profitability ÃoeHowever, we do not find evidence that these benefits have resulted in supranormal business profitability.Ã The researchers examined IT investments at 370 large firms. They found productivity gains and benefits to consumers, but no evidence of above-normal profits attributable to IT investments. Citation: Hitt, L. M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Productivity, Business Profitability, and Consumer Surplus: Three Different Measures of Information Technology Value. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 121Ã"142. Iecon Paper and abstract

3. Subramani & Walden (2001) Ã" Internet initiatives increased stock market valuations ÃoeThe results suggest that e-commerce initiatives do indeed lead to significant positive CARs for firms' shareholders.Ã Studying 251 e-commerce announcements from late 1998, the researchers found positive abnormal stock returns ranging from 4.9% to 23.4% across different subsamples. However, these were stock market gains reflecting expectations of future profitability, not demonstrated increases in operating profits. Citation: Subramani, M., & Walden, E. (2001). The Impact of E-Commerce Announcements on the Market Value of Firms. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 135Ã"154. PubsOnLine Full paper (PDF)

Bottom line The findings illustrate three different aspects of the late-1990s Internet economy:

- 1996: IT investments improved productivity without demonstrably generating above-normal corporate profits.
- 1998: Most surveyed businesses reported no measurable increase in revenue from their websites.
  - 1998 data, published 2001: Investors nevertheless rewarded companies announcing Internet initiatives with substantial increases in stock market valuation.

The important limitation: None of these studies established whether the average company earned a positive or negative net return on adopting the Internet. The 1998 survey comes closest to measuring actual business results specifically attributable to Internet adoption.

- end of AI
Studies in the social sciences invariably prove what is popular. Watch, you'll see, and they consistently lean luddite. They resent new capabilities changing the world more than their 'insights' ever do. New capabilities are what change the world, but why should technologists have all the power to determine the future? (As if innovation, innovation, and history worked that way at all - particularly since inventors (individuals or nations) usually have a slim window of exclusivity.

Yeah academic studies and surveys have a long and consistent record of failing to find any befit from IT in general: 1. Ng, Pan & Wilson (1998) â" Most businesses saw no revenue benefit âoeA majority (56%) indicated that their presence on the World Wide Web did not produce any noticeable change in their turnoverâ The study also found that approximately 31% reported increased turnover, while 13% could not identify an effect. Citation: Ng, H.-I., Pan, Y. J., & Wilson, T. D. (1998). Business Use of the World Wide Web: A Report on Further Investigations. International Journal of Information Management, 18(5), 291â"314, p. 310. Information Research Full paper (PDF) 2. Hitt & Brynjolfsson (1996) â" IT investments did not necessarily increase profitability âoeHowever, we do not find evidence that these benefits have resulted in supranormal business profitability.â The researchers examined IT investments at 370 large firms. They found productivity gains and benefits to consumers, but no evidence of above-normal profits attributable to IT investments. Citation: Hitt, L. M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Productivity, Business Profitability, and Consumer Surplus: Three Different Measures of Information Technology Value. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 121â"142. Iecon Paper and abstract 3. Subramani & Walden (2001) â" Internet initiatives increased stock market valuations âoeThe results suggest that e-commerce initiatives do indeed lead to significant positive CARs for firms' shareholders.â Studying 251 e-commerce announcements from late 1998, the researchers found positive abnormal stock returns ranging from 4.9% to 23.4% across different subsamples. However, these were stock market gains reflecting expectations of future profitability, not demonstrated increases in operating profits. Citation: Subramani, M., & Walden, E. (2001). The Impact of E-Commerce Announcements on the Market Value of Firms. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 135â"154. PubsOnLine Full paper (PDF) Bottom line The findings illustrate three different aspects of the late-1990s Internet economy: - 1996: IT investments improved productivity without demonstrably generating above-normal corporate profits. - 1998: Most surveyed businesses reported no measurable increase in revenue from their websites. - 1998 data, published 2001: Investors nevertheless rewarded companies announcing Internet initiatives with substantial increases in stock market valuation. The important limitation: None of these studies established whether the average company earned a positive or negative net return on adopting the Internet. The 1998 survey comes closest to measuring actual business results specifically attributable to Internet adoption. Studies in the social sciences invariably prove what is popular. Watch, you'll see, and they consistently lean luddite. They resent new capabilities changing the world more than their 'insights' ever do. New capabilities are what change the world, but why should technologists have all the power to determine the future? (As if innovation, innovation, and history worked that way at all - particularly since inventors (individuals or nations) usually have a slim window of exclusivity.

They primarily manage company-internal CAs for big businesses, which they seem to do well. AFAICT, they noticed that their security infrastructure was compliant for managing a global CA, and thought they might as well also have that as a product. However, there are some operational differences between an enterprise CA and a public one, including that companies want to issue client certs to employees but nobody really does global client certs. That means that they had an intermediate CA for global client certs that they never used, but it was in the standard trust store, and nobody tested that it was handled right until Wayne just went through the standard trust store making sure a new certificate weakness detector didn't give false positives.

So eMudhra correctly handled all the certs they issued, and all the certs they used to sign them, but they got some extra CA certs trusted that they didn't really need, because it would make their side business more similar to their main business, and this caused a major problem.

Chances are that they actually got a real random number out of a HSM for the bad CA certs, but accidentally made the certs with the index of the random number instead of the actual number. (That is, they got the 4th random number and made a cert for 4 instead of the number.) I wouldn't be surprised if they stored the correct private key, which would have made leaf certs that didn't validate because the intermediate was wrong, but they never used it to find this problem.

There is no good marker for the "age" of a cell.
Google result:
Key Methods Used to Estimate Cellular and Biological Age
https://www.google.com/search?...

It looks like if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.