At 15 years old it probably does have the grinder. They starting going away about then though, so hard to say without doing more digging than I care to.
Conversely, my wife insists on not pre-rinsing the dishes and that filter gets real gross, real quick. Unless you mean the spinny arms, never cleaned those before.
I feel sad hearing about parents who can't stand to hear their child cry for a few a few minutes, a few nights in a row, and instead have children who take years to learn to properly sleep, causing sleep deprivation for the entire family.
It is a hard one to get right. I learned rather fast that there are a variety of cries ranging from 'look at me' to 'I am hurt' each with own modulation, pitch and sense of urgency.
In a practical sense, I agree with you. Unless there is a clear cause for distress ( and there well may be ), I usually just wait. It is actually quite amazing how well kids pick up on our willingness to react to their cries.
Naturally, the instant switch from cry to laugh upon distraction was a big eye opener for me.
If it can generate working code, does that mean that asking students to produce working code was bullshit? Or does it just mean that AI can now do a lot of things we used to asked students to do (for probably solid educational reasons) at an above average level?
If it's reliably generating working code then that isn't bullshit! (Ignoring, of course, other things about the code that might be relevant to the assignment, like coding style or efficiency.) What I'm saying is that if you are looking at the AI's output and judging that it's bullshit, and if you can't distinguish that output from your students' satisfactory essays, then that by definition means that the assignment was to produce bullshit.
This is a pretty dumb take and it's repeated in this thread. The goal of the assignment is not a result. I mean the professor can probably write a better essay than some kid who just learned that this subject exist. The point of this exercise is to have the student learn how to do the work, so they can do it when it's not a simulated exercise.
You’re missing the point. Even if you disagree with the point, it’s important to understand it.
If the goal is “to have the student learn how to do the work”, and there is a tool they can use to do so, then using the tool is doing the work.
Your position only makes sense if you define “the work” to also include exactly the process you personally learned. No fewer tools (did you learn on a word processor?), no more tools (is spellcheck OK?).
When you are told to write an essay about WW2 it's not because your teacher needs info about WW2 but because they want you to read, parse, search, filter information and organise it in a logical manner. If all you do it type a question in chatgpt you learn nothing of these things that will be very useful in life in many situations in which you won't be able to ask your AI overlord for a quick answer.
You go from being a swiss army knife to being a butter knife without handle, it's all fun and games as long as you're asked to cut butter but when you'll have cut a steak or open a beer bottle you'll have a hard time.
That's not how learning work in the slightest, the output may be both of similar low quality but if the student learned a few things in the process of writing that low quality essay then it might have been worth it anyway, as in maybe the student didn't fully reached the knowledge or understanding to get the highest grade but it did improve the way the student thinks about the subject, maybe after a few days in the back or their heads it will click, or maybe it will click after reading something tangentially related, or maybe it will help them find gaps in their knowledge they were even unaware of before trying to actually complete the assignment (and were unable to be spotted by reading the homework tasks alone)
The code generated for school assignments is generally bullshit. No professor is going to take the students' assignments and run them in production on critical workloads.
The understanding in the mind of the students (or at least confirmation of that understanding) of how computers/the languages used work is not bullshit.
The problem here is that a lot of schoolwork is basically generating bullshit in the hope that it sparks/reinforces understanding of the material or lets a professor confirm that understanding. A competent bullshit generator makes that style of teaching/evaluation useless because you can just skip the understanding part.
Long Covid is extremely similar to ME/CFS, but affecting far more people. On the plus side for those of us living with ME/CFS, we can now explain to people "it's basically Long Covid." On the downside, this can be an extremely debilitating illness that lasts indefinitely. I am on year 14 and while I have seen improvement, I am still partially disabled.
My condolences to everyone dealing with Long Covid, which includes both the actual disease and the social consequences. It is already exhausting, but even more so when you need to convince people it's real, struggle to deal with skeptical or poorly informed doctors, and politely deal with the continuous unprompted medical advice from well-meaning friends, family, and internet strangers.
Not sure about the cultural dig at the English (that was probably very context-dependent and an in-joke for Germans/German speakers). But in general, Nietzsche probably meant something like "Man strives for power" by which he might have meant something more like self-expression that raw physical or political power.
I would personally say that most people strive for meaning (as in, living a meaningful life) even if they think they are striving for "happiness", which to me comes off as a very shallow and hedonistic aim.
For many things, keeping up-to-date and at least having some opinion is what's important to align with some subset of the companies out there. Otherwise you have no culture to even fit to and align with nobody.
Your map only appears to show the expected output of panels in those locations, with dark red and red obviously showing higher output. It does not support the claim that putting panels in the "wrong place" will produce negative economic and environmental returns. Maybe that's an argument that can be made, but you haven't really made it yet.
I have not made the argument because I could not handily find the source. But for the curious that set of knowledge comes from @peterzeihan tweet thread from few years ago. I am not going to debate this further as people here really want to believe in Solar and Wind being panacea, and I sympathize with them. Heck, I have put a 10kw solar plant on my roof 9 years ago.
If you haven't made an argument or come to discuss it doesn't seem like the statements are adding value. Nobody you are responding to claimed solar or wind are panacea. You have claimed there are wrong places for them without evidence in support, besides a wild goose hunt for a Twitter thread?
We should put solar and wind wherever we get the chance. In areas with not a lot of wind and not a lot of sun we can use fission, invest in fusion, or drill down and leverage geothermal to offset on-demand generation requirements.
Germany is one of the third worst countries for renewables given the small land mass, high population, and snowy winters. They're still a leader in renewables. In 2015 no solar panel installations were economically viable. In the past 3 years 60% were. [0] At the end of the decade solar anywhere on the planet is going to be more economic than digging up and burning oil.
And in developing countries the potential of solar far outstrips current or projected energy usage. We should be sharing this IP so as to avoid countries like India from building fossil fuel plants to industrialize.
Germany is burning lignite coal mined by destroying black forest, you want to give me a better example of energy policy. Germany is cautionary tale of what not to do. They became hostage to Russian ONG precisely for the wasteful investments they have made in the name of Renewable.
The energy price per kwh is high about $30 cents? in Germany. Germany is on pace to get its version of Rust belt soon.
Orphans and widows were also important legal categories. Children without a father needed a legal guardian until they turned 18. Married women (at least under British common law) were not separate legal entities from their husbands. So each category needed a defined term. Parents who had lost children were in many cases just "parents", since families were much larger and it was probably the rare large family who had not experienced the death of a young child.
Nope. If you can afford to live on the waterfront and enjoy the view, but never use your boat, are you morally obligated to sell your house to someone who will be out there fishing or skiing every day?
Land is bought and sold on an open market. Everyone can decide for themselves what is most important to them and what they can afford. One factor behind living in a major city is certainly easy access to in-person employment. But there are a ton of other factors (restaurants, culture, sporting events, community, etc.). If you are willing to pay a lot of money to be close to those things even if you don't use all of them, that's your choice and it's perfectly ethical.
I dislike this particular example because waterfront views aren't necessarily tied to boat accessibility. I have relatives in Long Island that live five houses from a marina and have absolutely no water view what-so-ever, however they have exceedingly good access to their boat which they sail regularly. I like the gist of your argument but the specifics are pretty questionable to me and I'm struggling to think of a similar fair argument that doesn't also have the "under-utilizer" reaping some direct benefit from the same quality that the "proper-utilizer" would fully exercise. The easiest example for me to think of is public transit, a lot of people make no use of public transit for their work commute but still use it when going out for the evening or get a benefit from it through their children's usage. City nodes tend to specialize pretty efficiently, the fact that people who want to live near a movie theater often compete with people wanting to live near transit is due to the fact that those attributes aren't nearly as independent as you'd think. Theaters and entertainment venues in general tend to clump around good public transit accessibility. The waterfront view and the ability to easily fish are two different services, but they're supplied by the same object so it isn't particularly easy to separate the two[1].
1. I mean, unless you're talking about Boston in the 90's where the Charles was a pristine beautiful river that only an absolute madman would ever dare to fish on or some other similar pollution driven limitation of services... but that also shifts the original point since fisherman have no desire to live close to the Charles (and might actually be harmed by having to boat up and down the Charles every day when compared to living in Chelsea or Southie.
