Skip to content

Slrpnk instance is down till mid July; they might relaunch their server on piefed.

Technology
92 56 1.0k

15/92

7. Juni 2025, 12:34


  • 288 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    129 Aufrufe
    It's like pidgeon chess, isn't it? Things are clear and well-studied, but people like you think that ignorance is a virtue and that something that you don't know can't be known by anyone else.
  • 43 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 60 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    85 Aufrufe
    Not really, there's an OR logical element present in our world. Divide et impera, applied to engineering. For 80% of things this fast cool solution works, for 20% the simpler one works. The aggregating element to make using both in their own situations transparent reduces reliability just a bit, but the efficiency gain is visible. And the "80%" and "20%" solutions can further on too use such unifying elements to aggregate different solutions for them. To improve efficiency without additional failure points (except for aggregators). Nobody does that because the "80% solution" producer wants to capture you, they don't want alternatives, they want power, and it's a honeypot. It's up to you the customer to understand this. In the classical model. Also see customer associations, which are like unions inverted. Isn't it funny how we have big businesses organizing, but not labor and not customers? While for them it's much more important. As you can see, the aggregator is very important here. We need standards, so that all social media would compete with other social media in one interoperable world with standardized interfaces, all search engines would compete with other search engines in one interoperable world with standardized interfaces, all file hostings ... you get the idea.
  • 775 Stimmen
    396 Beiträge
    17k Aufrufe
    You are more than welcome to cite the actual Geneva convention to show where I'm wrong.
  • 21 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 45 Stimmen
    25 Beiträge
    305 Aufrufe
    Sorry for the late reply, I had to sit and think on this one for a little bit. I think there are would be a few things going on when it comes to designing a course to teach critical thinking, nuances, and originality; and they each have their own requirements. For critical thinking: The main goal is to provide students with a toolbelt for solving various problems. Then instilling the habit of always asking "does this match the expected outcome? What was I expecting?". So usually courses will be setup so students learn about a tool, practice using the tool, then have a culminating assignment on using all the tools. Ideally, the problems students face at the end require multiple tools to solve. Nuance mainly naturally comes with exposure to the material from a professional - The way a mechanical engineer may describe building a desk will probably differ greatly compared to a fantasy author. You can also explain definitions and industry standards; but thats really dry. So I try to teach nuances via definitions by mixing in the weird nuances as much as possible with jokes. Then for originality; I've realized I dont actually look for an original idea; but something creative. In a classroom setting, you're usually learning new things about a subject so a student's knowledge of that space is usually very limited. Thus, an idea that they've never heard about may be original to them, but common for an industry expert. For teaching originality creativity, I usually provide time to be creative & think, and provide open ended questions as prompts to explore ideas. My courses that require originality usually have it as a part of the culminating assignment at the end where they can apply their knowledge. I'll also add in time where students can come to me with preliminary ideas and I can provide feedback on whether or not it passes the creative threshold. Not all ideas are original, but I sometimes give a bit of slack if its creative enough. The amount of course overhauling to get around AI really depends on the material being taught. For example, in programming - you teach critical thinking by always testing your code, even with parameters that don't make sense. For example: Try to add 123 + "skibbidy", and see what the program does.
  • 11 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    152 Aufrufe
    No, just laminated ones. Closed at one end. Easy enough to make or buy. You can even improvise the propellant.
  • 103 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    311 Aufrufe
    Edit: no, wtf am i doing The thread was about inept the coders were. Here is your answer: They were so fucking inept they broke a fundamental function and it made it to production. Then they did it deliberately. That's how inept they are. End of.