This is a business class. The class would have been negligent not to teach the students about screwing people, and would likewise be negligent not to hit the students with stuff written by chat-gpt, which they'll be seeing all the time in the workplace. Lord knows we all do.

The final should have been just one question:

1. Did you try to blackmail/extort a grade, cash, or a recommendation from your professor over the clear use of AI generated text and graphics?

If they say yes, they get an A. If not, they fail.

We need more leverage over Fox news than Trump has.

His approval rating is already fairly low. We need it to fall drastically low -- so low all his political helpers will abandon him and make sure people see them as fighting him. And the only mass media outlet which the target audience watches and believes is Fox news. They have to criticize trump carefully. But they can EXCORIATE anyone he appoints. And after taking down a bunch of the idiots he appointed, after the audience has cheered a bunch of people being brought down, they can slowly, slowly turn the anger towards the man who appointed them.

They won't do that, of course. Someone who wants that to happen needs to step up and buy it. That work could be facilitated by others. It's a publicly traded company. The Murdoch family owns such a large portion though, that it would require targeting their other individual source of income to force them to sell to a holding company which can be controlled. They need to be extorted. That again, requires leverage -- the family's other sources of income/holdings would need to be targeted. However, with the EU, the UK, and Australia working together, or even appearing to get ready to work together, I suspect someone with a commitment and deep pockets could become the majority stockholder. We're not talking about that much money here (though it's a lot for me) -- The whole company is worth less than $20b (you see multiple numbers, some as low as $11b). So getting a majority stake would cost less than $10b, and that would have a return on investment. Possibly, with smart management, and by moving its audience into a less destitute situation by providing actually helpful information, it could have an increased ROI. (Obviously, it needs to stay Fox news to some extent, playing on emotions, not logic, etc. but it can work towards pushing the emotions towards things which help the audience, not hurt them, so long as it moves slowly and keeps the audience by not making sudden changes. A slightly wealthier Fox news audience means more advertising revenue, fees for including it in cable could increase, and opposition to bundling it would evaporate, etc. A Fox news which is news for less-educated people rather than Fox news as enemy of progress would find its path smoothed in many ways.)

That would help massively for the current situation. It would also defuse an enemy to America which has been causing deaths and costing the population as a whole an incredible amount of money by fighting action based on science for years.

Yes, of course that would help. But that would require them to be something other than themselves. Surely there is a some other way?

In this case you're killing your own army, so the analogy doesn't work.

You can say here the army you're killing had no value, but that's the opposite of your kill-them-all-without-evaluation concept.

On some levels I agree. I have worked with some really bad H-1B folks being run by these consulting companies. But I have also worked with some who were awesome. The H-1B process is incredibly exploitative, and resembles indentured servitude.

The right solution here is to make popping someone talented out of H-1B easy for an outsider who spots quality (because the consulting firms won't do it of course), so talented folks get stripped out of these companies and turned into real Americans, as opposed to limbo-state Americans who wind up being here at least a decade before getting citizenship.

That would both quickly end the body-shop consulting firms and improve the American workforce through immigration, which is what the US has always been about.

We were active in wars where a lot more people survived with serious wounds than in past. We have gotten very good at stabilizing people in the field and getting them to medical facilities. So we have a higher percentage of damaged people who need help. We had a rough period where there wasn't enough help for the initially wounded. But their health problems need maintenance for lifetimes, and those number only increase until we have a prolonged period of peace -- so long that people die of old age. The VA was understaffed, and hiring was necessary.

All of this is spot-on.

Firstly, speeding up the blockbuster process by a factor of two means reducing the paychecks by a factor of two which functions as staff reductions on a take-home-pay basis. Whether the process goes faster or takes the same time with less people is immaterial.

Secondly, it is far, far cheaper to make good films than blockbusters. The blockbuster system is a horribly broken one -- you can make a good film people will love if they bother to watch it for $5m dollars, or make the same film with higher production values so you can get a larger watching audience (lots of people will turn off a film with low production values) for $30m.

Most modern films cost way more than that.

The more you spend on a film, the more the studio is endangered by it. So the more the studio will spend on hype and distribution. So by making a blockbuster you guarantee success. If the studios simply decided to work as hard on hype for a $60m film they would make much more money on it than the $300m blockbusters.

Note that when risk goes up, decisions by committee go up, and writing by committee increases, and you get bland films with a lot of explosions. Not good films, just expensive films.

The place you need AI is in the marketing and accounting divisions. You need a system to blame for failure which won't lose a cushy job, and which can say "no" to executives without risk to employees. A good economics AI would be immensely profitable for the studios, and would increase the number of films made.

Note that this would result in a catastrophic reduction in the take-home pay of the people Cameron incorrectly says won't be affected by AI.

While making patents is painful, it's learnable.

The problem is patent searches. I think current AI patterns are really overblown and was just lied to by one two days ago.
BUT in this case, what the patent office really needs is chat-GPT-like AI trained on the current patent body. That would really help on previous art searches.

We currently have lawyers doing searches, and they don't understand what to search for or what's relevant. It's costly, produces massive false positives, clearly doesn't find all relevant work, and useless without an expert on the actual patented item going over what was found -- and that only helps on the false positives, not the missed info.

Translation:

The IRS is killing anything which will reduce the payout to the owners of H&R Block, Intuit, etc. The masses have money which can be fleeced, and rich people can harvest that. The IRS will instead pump money into AI, because that's a way that the current government can siphon US funds off to push to rich folks which own AI concerns, Musk notably, but others as well. AI has the great benefit of being trainable on simple tax returns, so we effectively audit all middle-class and lower folks, while complex tax returns remain so individual AI probably won't be able to make an impact on auditing those -- and this government will make sure it's never tried.

In order for a new shape or weight of pennies to work, machines which take them would have to be changed. Essentially they'd have to take a new coin type. It would be expensive and would be done slapdash, and those plastic pennies would be at times useless.

It's better to just stop making them. I cannot believe that trump is doing something which I actually agree with.

Don't worry. That won't happen again. You'll get what 95% magically vote for from now on.

There are parking mandates and greenspace mandates for new construction all over the place. For new construction, such a mandate actually makes sense.

A mandate in the form of "if a homeowner wants an outlet for their fixed spot, you have to let them" for condos and homeowners associations would be trivial and solve the issue of condo-board paranoia, which is a MASSIVE dampening on EV adoption.

If you can arrange a fixed parking spot in a garage, and get 110v to that, you're fine and it's a good idea to buy a used one -- they are really cheap, cost less to maintain, and you'll pay less than $365 a year in "gas", assuming a roughly $10 a night charge cost, which is actually a high estimation for most folks.

If you have street parking, you should not get one, and you should be ANGRY. Because the gov is not valuing you. You are paying a gas tax which means a car is vastly more expensive for you than for suburban or wealthier condo-livers. We need on-street solutions, and they are essentially non-existent.

But that's OK, because apparently inner-city voters don't matter. This is just more proof.

Your point is completely right, but you're aiming low.

"It's probably more intuitive to express charging in terms of miles per hour. L1 charging is between 2-3 miles of range per hour of charge. So if you had a daily driving burden of 15 miles, and you feel confident you can get 8 hours of charging in on an average day, then you are golden for L1 charging, with maybe an occasional trip to a fast charger if you have a 'weird' week"

L1 is generally a little less than 1500w. (You will have real trouble buying anything in the US which takes more than 1500 watts. It's what all space heaters max out at.) Most cars get 3+ miles per KWH -- the massive cybertruck gets 2 miles per KWH. So an hour on a 110v charger gets you 3 miles per hour on a Cybertruck. It gets more like 4.5 miles per hour on my Niro. A model 3 gets more like 6 miles per hour of 110v charging.

If you have a F150 EV, or a Hummer, you need a L2 charger. Most folks can get 40+ miles per night easily, especially since they generally have more than 10 hours of parked car per night, at least on average... unless their night life is really busy.