this is not necessarily the case; the coursework could have been produced by a different person from the teacher (although generally at my alma mater the 'module organiser' fulfils both roles).
I’m not sure GP’s point landed. As I read it, it had nothing to do with who created the curriculum or even how much the student learned.
“Anyone who applies the smallest amount of effort gets a B and anyone who really tries gets an A” is a path to being seen as a great teacher in the eyes of the students, especially the students who got a B.
I am not disputing that being the case in general, but it'd be nicer if they gave me more benefit of the doubt: I tried to give an honest view of actually receiving good instruction, and not enjoying being handed good grades for nothing.
I've responded to them directly what that got me (like great uni entry exam scores with literally zero prep for a maths program, and a couple of semesters of exam passing with minimal prep for a maths/CS/physics majors).
On top of that, I am talking of this almost 30 years later — perhaps I have some perspective and I am not a fresh out of school guy who just loves getting off the hook easy?
Not on the 13" no but they could have made the touch pad slightly smaller.
For me touch keys will never work, like the other poster said I need tactile feedback. Apple's keyboards are pretty bad at that already by the way, even the return to scissor models. The only ones I find workable are the ones of 2015 and before.
> done already in the 1990s
by human-written programs that iterated through the finite casework that human thought had reduced the theorems to (four-colour theorem, FLT, etc.), which recent developments (eg. LLMs autonomously resolving Erdős problems) seem meaningfully distinct from.
> human effort to make the results cleanly understandable
well, perhaps loops of "derive proof through reasoning in English, formalise in Lean, use AST size of formal proof as a metric to optimise (via an LLM-guided search), translate back into English" could improve this? a lot of resources are being spent to make frontier LLMs more resistant to hallucinations via Lean, perhaps cogency will increase as a byproduct.
from the "DeepSeek is a ploy to undermine usamerican models' duopoly" theory's perspective, "now everyone has this" helps them achieve this goal more efficiently.
especially if it's something that the major companies had already stumbled upon (something equivalent to) and regarded as a trade secret.
yes, that is pretty much what he disclosed in the article
> He turned to Google’s Gemini AI for advice and decided to create a “hot girl” crafted specifically for the “MAGA/conservative niche,” after the software told him that “the conservative audience (especially older men in the US) often has higher disposable income and is more loyal,” according to Wired.
> It doesn’t explain why so many more fall for it.
It's pretty easy: he started out trying to create a "hot girl" influencer, then refined that. It could be his starting point was biased towards filling a certain type of conservative fantasy, but wasn't as easily adaptable to progressives. For instance: it could be that lonely straight progressive men are more neurotic about their sexuality, and thus less-likely to respond positively to a bikini model picture, even if the "model" is flattering their political ideology.
Also there's been a demographic divergence, and young women are much more liberal than men, which means there's less of a supply of "hot girl" conservatives and more unfulfilled demand for them.
I suspect the progressive version of this is something a lot less discoverable by a random slop-making foreign man.
> "Progressive fantasy" would be AOC and Bernie, and we already have that in real life.
That's not the kind of fantasy I'm talking about. I'm talking about the kind of fantasy person that could cause a progressive to feel some pull towards a para-social relationship. That kind of thing was obviously at play with this character. I don't think you're going to get that from a politician.
It is kind of crazy that growing up I recall hearing a lot of “be careful don’t trust the internet” and then now that same generation of people is falling for all manner of scams and fake news peddlers online.
Apologies if it seems I'm just stoking a stereotype, but this comes from personal experience with family. For a demographic who generally are proud to be "old school", "not computer people", skeptical, distrustful of technology, self-reliant, and at least paid lip service to those ideals when raising their children, they sure do love being lied to and manipulated by the very enemies they claimed to be resistant to.
I also recall hearing, "do as I say, not as I do" a lot as well.
If these folks really did change to be more susceptible to scams though, I hope for my own sake that this is less a function of aging and more a function of being fed a steady diet of conservative propaganda. I can avoid the latter...
age doesn't inherently make math less useful, and the parts it does affect it does non-uniformly.
i have undergone an undergrad differential equations module that taught exclusively ad-hoc methods for certain families of equation that no working mathematician needs to know since they were all subsumed into and superseded by computer algebra systems, but the subject i would enjoy replacing it with (generating functions) is similarly old in origin (perhaps even earlier, since Euler used most of the techniques that an undergrad class would cover before diffeqs were considered an object of study) but has happened to become more useful with the advent of CASes instead of less.
reply