When commenting, I suggest you read the article first. It would be extremely, extremely clear to you what people mean in this thread when they say "gambling."
3,765 karma · joined January 19, 2017
When commenting, I suggest you read the article first. It would be extremely, extremely clear to you what people mean in this thread when they say "gambling."
I know it's pedantic, but to me the key thing is that it is the rights themselves that are "licensed." Not specific copies. The license covers what ways you are and are not allowed to make more copies (that aren't just your personal copy). So e.g. Open Source/Free Software/Closed Source libraries can be "licensed" and copies of them can be modified and included in work you create according to the license.
Not sure how first sale affects software sales other than software rental in the USA is an exception to the first sale doctrine. Software rental is not allowed unless it's a physical video game copy for a video game console or you have a physical copy of the software and you can't just easily make a copy of it in the normal course of using it (not sure exactly what this would mean, but presumably things like software for embedded devices). There are exceptions for libraries and educational institutions.
I am not a lawyer, however.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/foundation/attribu...
Personally I think patenting game mechanics is absurd (far worse than software patents, even). It would be like an authoring patenting the three-act structure. More legal clarity around this would be nice. Maybe Judge Alsup could become a combo lab monster[0] as well to help decide the case!
I'm sure we all have our own feelings about IP law, but remember what happens to regular people who try stuff like this. I don't think the RIAA, Disney, or Nintendo (or the government) are going to be pleased to hear "it's not piracy! It's a transformative experience protected by fair use!"
I would add the UK to the stigma list as well. The UK government and NHS are pretty rabidly ADHD-denialist and make it incredibly difficult to get a diagnosis.
This is compounded by the fact that vouchers often pull out more funding that the government otherwise would provide to the district for that student. This is mentioned in the article as well. e.g. the state pays the district $5k a year per student, but pulls $8k a year for a student that uses a voucher.
Also, in a lot of these rural areas there are no other good options anyway besides the school district. It’s either the district, a scammy online charter school, a scammy fly-by-night charter school, or homeschooling.
Are you scandalized when a city and the county it is in sue each other and the transportation department over who has responsibilities for what sections of road and how much money who should get rather than letting the citizens who drive on those roads decide? Where do you draw the line for what money the government decides how to spend and what money individuals should decide how to spend?
22,734 games utilize Curl (glorifying).
Hmm I wonder how this happened? I assume at least at one point SVE was such headline feature of 9.0 that LLVM assumed any 9.0 chip would have SVE even if it wasn't technically required?
"Actually it's good that AI sucks because it will teach people to be more skeptical" is not a very compelling argument.
This will never take off. One, there is no money in Ed.Tech. There is no money in Ed.Tech. There is no money in Ed.Tech. What little money there is goes to the obvious stuff like student records databases. Anything that requires an ongoing subscription fee is dead in the water. The only reason those stupid smartboards took off is because they make school boards look cool, they are a one time cost, and can be paid for with bonds (because they are a one time cost). Teachers don't want them (projectors and document cameras are good, though). Ed.Tech is a wasteland of failed startups. Part of the problem is also that classic "the people with the purchasing power are not the people who will be using the product" problem.
Two, everyone outside of education thinks "well has anyone just tried sitting down with the kids and talking to them/explaining it to them?" Yes, obviously. The problem isn't that they are lazy, snot-nosed kids (that's a problem well within an experienced teacher's skill set to solve). The problem is what is the AI going to do with the kid says "fuck you" to the AI because they haven't eaten since lunch the previous day (school is the only place they get regular meals), or they don't even know what to ask because they are basically 4 grades behind in math, or the wifi is dead for the 8th time that month because the school board will never pay for infrastructure.
Three, what if the AI is just wrong and starts confusing the student? Even GPT-4 fabricates things all the time. Sure it can generally put words in grammatically correct order and is passible for writing no one is going to read anyway (like marketing emails). But the moment it requires actual domain knowledge all these AI models completely fall down because, again, they don't actually understand anything, they just are really good at guessing what word comes next.
I think the Amazon Fire phone also tried something similar in real time with several front facing eye tracking cameras and the gyro+accelerometer to shift the phone UI and simulate a 3D view with parallax. The old mobile Safari tab view also used to shift the tabs based on the phone's orientation.
I would love to see a "globally illuminated" UI someday, even if it's impractical. Something like all those Windows renders the Microsoft Design team put out, but in real time. Totally impractical and a poor use of electricity, but it would be cool to have path traced, soft drop-shadows.