There’s an interesting middle ground: not fully malleable software, where the end user has full customisation ability but requires full programming skill, but eg the Unix tool model where prebuilt utilities can be composed with a simple syntax.
Pre-existing (or importable) ELisp functions are kinda similar, just a slightly higher level of user skill.
A time when a take-home, closed-book test, relying on the honesty and integrity of the students, was viable seems completely unrealistic now. I assume there were always some who cheated, but I can imagine that it was sufficiently socially unacceptable that many didn't.
At least where I live, universities used to run entrance exams. They didn't care about high school grades, or even if you'd ever been to high school: if you passed the entrance exam, you could enroll.
At my child's high school, phones are "off and away all day", and the punishment for being caught with a phone in your pocket (or hands) is pretty severe.
During an exam, it's an instant zero mark, on top of the after-school detention (the punishments escalate to suspension and expulsion for repeat offenses).
I'm hopeless at pure cursive writing. My default writing is a joined-up-ish kind of printing. Writing using it works really well for retaining information for me.
It's been clearly shown to be beneficial for some people. I too happen to be one of them.
For others, hearing stuff (and saying stuff) out loud is more useful. I had a friend who'd make nonsense songs of stuff to learn: just doggerel, but by singing it to himself when revising, he had a massive uptick in retention. He was so happy when he worked that out.
I imagine there might be other modes that work for other people too?
I would often do a bullet point summary/outline of my answer on the paper. That would have arrows and insertions and crossed-out stuff everywhere -- it was usually a mess.
But then I'd use that to write the actual text answer, and consequently, it was mostly clean. I'd still have to cross stuff out or add a phrase between the lines every so often, but once the basic structure was done, that was mostly unnecessary.
And if I was ever pressed for time, I'd usually get part marks for the outline anyway. Depending on the subject, I'd sometimes race through the questions doing just the outlines, and then come back to write the full text as a complete second pass.
To be fair, this wasn't creative writing. I think it'd be harder when the expression is the content.
My child's high school is doing the same thing: all exams are now handwritten on paper in a supervised room. Phones and smartwatches are always banned during the school day, but laptops are banned during exams. This is standard at state-funded high schools in Australia.
There will likely be a period where those who went through high school with computers struggle with hand writing stuff, but the next generation will have done it all their lives.
The concept of a "job" can encompass many things. Some of those change when machines become more capable, some don't.
For example, one part of a job is the satisfaction, the purpose, the meaning of life derived from being useful. Not having that can be pretty bad for people. So, even if the machines take over a lot of what is done by people today, you'll probably want to find a way of being useful.
Hedonism and wealth are both remarkably bad at delivering the same contentment that being useful does. That said, of course, a bit of hedonism and capital is also good.
> let them run for a season/series and gauge popularity vs cost, and cut the under performers (why I don't watch a show until a couple seasons are live).
And so you don’t contribute to the selection of shows.
It’s a dilemma. I started streaming stuff I like the sound of despite the risk of being rug-pulled, because otherwise there’s no signal that they should fund series 2.
I have a heap of family and friends who live in a different country to me. I'd love an old school Friendster / early Facebook-style social medium where we could share posts, but the tapping mechanic makes this impractical for me.
I’m sorry to be harsh but this is 100% your fault, and attempting to shift the blame onto Cursor and Railway just doesn’t fly.
The onus is on you to make sure your system uses the APIs in a way that’s right for your business. You didn’t. You used a non-deterministic system to drive an API that has destructive potential. I appreciate that you didn’t expect it to do what it did but that’s just naivety.
You’re reaping what you sowed.
Best of luck with the recovery. I hope your business survives to learn this lesson.
At about 1:20, the presenter says the BFS uses a different OS and hardware (not sure if that means a different instance, or a different class, so to speak).