I've just tried my first prompt on your "try" setting, and what was generated wasn't anything like what I was expecting, to be honest. I asked for a workout tracking app with a good list of requirements (maybe it was too complex?), and the platform thoughts for quite a while. What I got was a template for a front end to connect to an AI agent for chats.
I didn’t have to scroll very far to find this kind of comment, which I was honestly expecting right from the get go. I feel like I’m always seeing this kind of feedback for these kinds of services.
Given that teachers are no longer competing for student attention in class, that is one single and quite important positive which doesn't require an academic study and referencing to demonstrate.
I'm not sure what you were hoping to achieve with the request for evidence, but what you're asking is not yet subject to a longitudinal study. The move has certainly been praised by educators, and that should be enough given it's the first or second year year of implementation in many cases, and what they are advocating for isn't a social taboo, nor draconian.
But phones shouldn't be competing with the teacher during class in the first place!
Are we going to draft laws to ban fiction books from school because kids might be reading books during class? Because I literally saw that happen when I was in school. Obviously unrelated things to the class shouldn't be used during class, but these phone bans go beyond just the classroom.
I ask for evidence, because all the evidence I've seen on it has been effectively nothing. The studies are vague, get weak results or draw conclusions that aren't supported by the study. Eg there were some Spanish regions that banned phones in school. Soon after they scored higher on PISA, this was naturally used to support the ban. But the next round they scored lower than before the ban.
Banning phones in schools seems almost entirely to me about "kids these days are ruined". Phones are just the easy culprit to point to. Meanwhile phone bans do infringe on the liberties of the kids. You are taking something away from them.
Do remember, however, that the judge is viewing this purely through a legal lens. That interpretation is probably quite an easy one to get to where if you have built a product and never allowed a competitors product in, and nor have you taken over someone else's by using unfair business practices then you're not a monopoly given the legal definition, not the dictionary definition.
From the point of defence of the dictionary definition, Android is huge in Australia, and outside the US generally.
Its always been pretty easy to insert a network configuration file into an app apk's Manifest to get it to support user installed certificates so you can route ssl connections through an ssl proxy.
Its actually kind of annoying that it isn't just an OS feature (hidden behind a scary settings option that's also hidden behind being in developer mode) to enable user installed certs for any installed application. Much less annoying to debug network issues on iOS because of this and Android isn't really any more secure for it.
https://httptoolkit.com also worth a look if you're interested in this space: has some neat automated setup for Android MITM that can be much simpler _and_ more effective than the manual config route (with automated Frida setup on rooted devices, so it handles unpinning too!). More UI & less CLI focused, so depends which way your preferences go there.
If you just want to see domains being connected to, then I believe most android firewall applications provide that functionality. Generally much easier to setup that MITM in Android.
The author compares it to the average bill going through congress, where you expect 0.1 emdash per page, where this bill has 10. So 100x the historic average.
well, for one, it's more more than 0.1 em dashes per page. the SHARE IT Act has 10 on each page[0]. I don't know how many the 2017 tax cut bill had but it's more than 1,000 and that was over 185 pages[1], and obviously that was before LLMs like ChatGPT. so I don't really know why this is the measure of AI or not, especially because bills have always had a lot of em dashes to start. if you're not analyzing the text of the bill then it's just not going to be accurate
I'm the author and updated this post - after looking into this, the larger bills contain entire pages with only headings that contain emdashes - removed the headings from analysis so that the emdashes per page are only from the legislative text itself. For the baseline, over 50% of bills found on congress.gov are 1-2 pgs, after reading a few I decided some rationale could exist to remove them from the baseline - even after all these adjustments, we're still looking at a 30% increase from a decent baseline of similar bill size. It's evident when reading the text below headings (as a human!)
Share IT is from 2024, but the 2017 tax cut bill is interesting (lots of emdashes there that deviate from the avg) - you’re correct on the additional need for text analysis in this case. Bills I’d found from earlier in 2024 that are publicly available do not have emdashes outside of the table of contents, which is built into the average - curious how/why they are used so much in this bill from 2017, now wondering how they got into any potential templates (or not), and adds the confound of how much this is AI or template (or requirements, or something else) Thx!
Might be stupid, but it works, for now. Over indexed tokens is another (common inclusions). Some grammar constructions, too, where over descriptiveness is present - though that's easy to read and probably a bit harder to code for.
Some of the new 1000v infrastructure has 10-80% charging occuring in 5 minutes.
These arguments are kind of like horse and cart owners stating that gasoline powered vehicles will.need to be able to get fuel and that's impractical. Its infrastructure and innovation that is still being built out, the that build out is now 10-12 years along for most first world nations.
Dude, it doesn’t matter if it’s Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Islam; any religion that says infants have souls, is not likely to have a God lenient to that action.
It’s a bet on atheism, declaring that any religion whatsoever preaching infant ensoulment must be false. Be careful what you bet on.
Each of those has sects that do not follow the talking point you're putting forward. If it isn't clear to them, then by what right do you get to declare the truth for everyone else? Go debate some more, before trying to unilaterally rule for all mankind.
For most of it's history Protestantism did not take any specific issue with abortion and considered it a weird Catholic thing similar to their views on birth control. It wasn't until the 1960s that this shifted, largely due to political machinations.
Islam typically sides with people doing what they have to to live, including eating pork if that is what it takes to survive. In regards to abortion, the mothers life takes paramount.
Case in point, quit waving your religious dogma in my face. Its not wanted. I've no desire, and quite frankly, absolutely no need, to be careful what I bet on in terms of beliefs. Anything that requires belief without proof meeting even the most meagre bar height is nonsense.
Since you seem to be giving others here a hard time about Abrahamic ideas of belief, hell, and morals, I'll leave you with a quote from your own book:
Matthew 6:1: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
