Let's say sufficient instances for the student to prove his/her point - the student used "all" in the AI prompt, but really meant as many as possible from which they could pick and choose. Is it ethical or should it be viewed as cheating?
What is the general take on the ethics of using AI as a much more powerful search engine? For example, "Find all occurences in the text where Odysseus' will is overridden by the Gods." The question is not something that would be directly set by an instructor, but might be required to substantiate an interpretation that a student is aiming for.
Finding something like this is difficult and requires reading the text closely. But with AI, you could get away by reading around the passages returned by AI.
From India, and cloudflare to my website resolves to the same ip block. The 172.67.198.x is very much reachable. In fact I can ping and access the exact ip in the article. Not sure what the OP's problem was, but it does not seem to be cloudflare or a govt block.
Just a blank page with "No Signals" in the center. Only when I allow stripe.com to load, do I see the webpage. I get it that stripe is required for subscription, but to prevent the site loading if stripe isn't enabled is not exactly nice I think.
Note: jquery.com, jsdeliver.net, and prismic.io allowed to load. licdn.com and stripe.com disallowed.
Is "activism" against the employer protected under anti-retaliation laws? I thought these laws protected employees for things like reporting workplace discrimination, harassment, being a witness in such an investigation, etc. Can you indulge in activism against your employer and claim that you need to be protected from retaliation if they fire you?
A good example of this success, is the muslims of India today. A successive train of islamic invaders have forced multiple generations to take up the religion. Invaders raised towers of skulls of the "kafirs" they killed, and imposed "jizya" (a kafir-only tax) on generations of them. The result today is a large population of their descendants that is completely assimilated in islamic culture.
The problem with anything to do with social media in regards to free speech, censorship, and elections, is that no side is able to define and agree on a common framework that should be applicable to all parties without bias.
The same people who cry murder over censorship will turn around and outrage at provocations against their point of view, label it hate-speech or fake-news, and demand that Facebook/Twitter/Whatsapp take stringent actions against perpetrators who are "trying to influence the outcome of elections."
The problem is that misinformation, fake-news and hate-speech are ill-defined continuums that occupy a fuzzy space - there's no well-defined point at which a news story crosses the line and becomes misinformation or fake-news. Everything about a news story is tinged by bias and political narrative - the choice of words, the tone, the sources, the timing, and even what to cover. Even the most neutral sounding ones cannot escape tinging the story with a hint of what the author believes.
Given this, blocking social media by governments during elections is not so bad after all. Unlike other solutions that try to regulate it, the blocking is uniform across ideology and party.
Either that, or open it up fully and stop trying to regulate it in any way. There's no in-between point that is fair.
But if that's the chosen path, then you'd have to be ok with the imposition of majoritarian laws on the minorities of the country - at least until the majority wakes up and tunes into the west's liberal values, or until the minority ceases to exist - whichever occurs first.
On the one hand, the west seems to think that people have a fundamental right to protest and affect change in government, because, yeah, democracy, will of the majority and all that.
On the other hand, if you let democracy get a foothold in many of the muslim-majority states, the winner of a democratic process will very likely be what the west perceives as a religious fundamentalist group whose values are antithetical to almost every single value that the west holds dear (including democracy itself). It will mean the rise of groups such as the muslim brotherhood that have pan-islamism and the establishment of sharia as their stated goals.
So you can either support the right of the people to overthrow an authoritarian regime and establish a democratic process that will lead to a fundamentalist islamic state, or you can support a regime that is authoritarian but will allow the practice of some western liberal values.
If we were to accept and enforce this rule, billions of followers of some major religions would not be eligible to be part of a free and open society.