We don’t fully understand even some of the most obvious pathologies. If a disease isn’t glaringly obvious and coupled with profit incentive, God help you. The question of what microplastics do to us is simply beyond the capabilities of both modern medicine and academic research institutions.
I appreciate this reply. Even as a technical reader, these concepts are somewhat tricky to follow. In my opinion, this is more of a foot-gun than a feature. A user cannot know whether the screen is closed or not while it is next to their ear—and it’s possible that related inconsistent detection isssues sometimes automatically close the screen when the phone is not against the ear.
Are there times when, during a call, pressing an iPhone’s screen-on/off button will end the call, but other times when it will just turn the screen off?
I still do not know the pattern, but I have on occasion inadvertently ended a call by using that button prior to placing my iPhone in my pocket.
That’s a different debate, and imo, the lack of a severe curve makes it safer for students to resist temptations to cheat. Severe curves ratchet up structural pressures for students to cheat, due to a prisoners’ dilemma effect in a zero-sum competitive environment. When there is a severe curve and students are able to cheat, acting with integrity becomes a failing strategy.
The thing about the community of trust—of which all stewards—is that camaraderie, respect, identifying with the community, and integrity will keep the majority of students from cheating. And if that isn’t enough, the “single sanction” was historically a sufficient danger to raise the stakes immensely.
However, some students will cheat, and for that reason, I am very much against curves. If you learn the material and demonstrate that you have, you should get the A. But it’s more work for professors to calibrate their curriculums, and there seems to be no real accountability for the inverse of learning objectives—teaching objectives—so curves are likely here to stay.
So, formal methods produce runnable systems, but communication remains the challenge.
If a formal spec is messy, then it's a proof of ... what, exactly?
A formal specification that bridges tech and product, that lets non-technical contributors read and discuss all the logical nuances, directly as operational code, at product's level of abstraction of interest, would transform a lot.
It's no longer a challenge to create code, it's a challenge to create business requirements and translate them into systems.
The bargaining dynamics are stacked against biology researchers at every stage of their career, from needing years and years of unrelated performance to be admitted to terribly expensive programs before they can begin to do experiments, to requiring costly equipment and resources to work, to needing to work with a small number of very powerful companies.
As a result, life science researchers are more price-taking than proce-setting when it comes to their wages / salary. If money is the motivator, then the market as-is isn’t addressing this one.
Okay, fair. I was thinking mostly about the high-impact issue of preserving the security vulnerability and how an essential vendor was not being candid, but you are also right to note how AMD was avoiding its responsibilities to the individual researcher himself.
What hair is this splitting? The issue was that AMD allowed a known and serious security vulnerability to exist within their customers’ systems, for months, and acted with a lack of candor while doing so.
I’m watching to see what happens to big enterprise software contracts. Why pay some vendor $800k annually for something a couple mid-level devs can replace—-and tailor closely to your needs——by leveraging AI.
Open source software changed the world. AI that will cheaply write whatever you want in a few days will also change the world.