that implies the rate at which CTs kill occupants is even higher than that when compared to modern cars, right?

probably because “talent” is more specific:

that would be like “why not call them dogs?” when talking about poodles…yes, it’s technically correct, but not really representative, is it?

.:|:;

having not looked into it at all: it probably doesn’t “need” to be fresh water, but it’ll probably be rivers anyways.

i assume it works similarly to other large scale cooling operations: you have a closed loop for the heat exchangers and the cooling towers are fed by a local source of flowing water.

doesn’t need to be all that clean, or fresh water, but since rivers are pretty much the only source of moving water in most places, there’s not really many other options. (for the cooling towers, not AI datacanters…they could just NOT build them, if they weren’t fuckwits)

same as nuclear power plants, or any other industrial application that needs a lot of cooling!

yes, that’s why it’s called fingerprinting:

it’s a kind of mathematical function that takes the entire code as input and outputs a unique result.

the result is just some string of symbols (which really just represent a unique string of 1’s and 0’s).

this unique string of characters is, as mentioned, unique for any given input.

this string can then be compared to any arbitrary other string, and if they match, then you know it’s the same code.

so in the case of signal anybody can download the source, compile it, and verify that it matches the fingerprint of the compiled code on their own device.

that’s why it can’t be faked: you compare the already compiled code.

if even a single digit of the code is out of place, it’s not going to result in the same string, and thus immediately get flagged as a mismatch.

it’s mathematically impossible to fake.

if it’s just gaming, consider a side-grade to bazzite:

it’s an atomic fedora distro (even has a dedicated Nvidia installer), meaning it’s more difficult to break and easier to rollback when it breaks!

and it has a bunch of gaming related tools pre-installed, which is helpful, but not the main selling point imo.

anyways, yeah, linux gaming is really, REALLY easy these days!

the problem here is that this is in a university setting.

the student has almost certainly been made aware of what “discussion” means.

i explained in a different comment (check my profile if the link doesn’t work, not sure how to properly link comments…) why this is not a sufficient excuse.

because the previous comment seemed well received, I’ll try to give another example of how this sort of course might generally play out:

at a typical university you’ll get some general orientation at the beginning of the first semester. this will include things like the rules for exams, the rules for the campus, the rules for the dorms (if there are any), the rules for general conduct and behavior on-campus, and a ton of other shit like safety drills in case of a fire or other catastrophe, laboratory training (if relevant), and on and on. there’s a LOT to cover in the first few weeks. you’ll probably sign a bunch of forms that say “i have read the rules” in legalese, so that there is proof that you have been made aware of the rules.

this orientation will include, or be closely followed by, a class on scientific work.

this course will cover the scientific method, scientific literature, scientific citations (in the specific style of your field and university), the formatting of all your submissions (there’s usually a template you are supposed to use, though this is somewhat dependant on the teacher of any given class.)

there will also be sections on scientific language: the difference between a scientific theory and a “theory” in casual language, what a scientific paper really is and how to tell the difference between a high quality and a low quality paper (or if the paper is just complete nonsense.), and so forth.

this is were the student in the OP almost certainly learned how the assignment given was supposed to be written.

there’s literally entire classes for this specific thing.

and yeah, that’s because it’s actually difficult to do properly!

there’s nothing “unfair”, or “unexpected”, or “insufficiently clear” about this work assignment.

it can seem that way to someone who hasn’t been to university, but to everyone who has, it’s clear as day.

there is never a need to point out things like “you need to use proper citations in your work”, or “you need to follow the scientific method”, because this has already been covered and is then expected in damn near every assignment afterwards.

it’s the expected standard.

so there are two possibilities here:

either the student hasn’t absorbed the material of the previously mentioned class, and just kinda winged it, hoping for the best, and is thus simply an exceedingly bad scientist, which means the failure was entirely deserved.

…or they did it on purpose, and the failure was entirely deserved.

my money is definitely on the latter.

TL;DR:

she damn well knew this submission would be disqualified.

because all students know this.

it’s literally the scientific method, and thus one of the very first things they teach you at university.

hope this clears up why none of this is explicitly mentioned in the assignment, but feel free to ask more questions!

the evidence is: this is a university course.

this is normal for every university in the world. everyone that’s ever taken a university course knows this.

it’s quite literally the scientific method.

it’s almost never spelled out anywhere, because students generally have dedicated courses that teach this method and related things like researching, proper citations, writing structures and styles, etc.

usually called something like “scientific working” or something (don’t know what it’s called in english, german is usually something like “wissenschaftliches arbeiten”).

this isn’t kindergarten; there are prerequisites and they are expected by default.

these aren’t children, they’re adults.

and everyone involved knew this in advance.

this is not “hidden” or “secret”.

it’s a standard.

yes, exactly!

what i think is rather important to point out:

even in theology this shit wouldn’t fly!

that’s how absurd this “controversy” is.

because even in theology you need to provide sound argumentation and sources. even there you need more evidence than this “student” submitted.

it’s just…so, so absurd.

you are confusing the assignment and the grading.

they are two separate things.

the assignment was:

1. A discussion of why you feel the topic is important and worthy of study (or not)
2. An application of the study or results to your own experiences

the submission failed on both these points, and thus it is automatically disqualified, no grading is even applied.

there was no discussion in the submission.

“discussion” in an academic context is a technical term that means “examining a topic based on evidence from some point of view”. you may have encountered something similar in school as a pro/contra essay. in academia this gets expanded on by requiring evidence in the form of citations in order to support one’s positions and conclusions (or lack thereof).

since the student did not provide sources, this point of the assignment is not fulfilled.

the same goes for the second point, for the same reasons: insufficient evidence was provided.

the teachers explain this in their response.

since neither part of the assignment is fulfilled no grading is applied: it’s an automatic failure.

this is also explained in the response.

you may want to carefully read the responses again, and keep in mind that all of this is happening in an academic context. providing evidence is expected by default.

“i believe”, “i feel”, 'the bible says", etc., are NOT evidence in a scientific context…

use or don’t; who cares?

just don’t spread lies…

not true, it does sort of the opposite:

debrid services cache torrents in order to provide them at high speed to clients (that’s why they aren’t free: they need data storage).

this is a good thing, because it means the swarm is only taxed once per file, instead of constantly by potentially hundreds of streamers.

from stremio’s FAQs:

How Debrid Services Work with Stremio

Stremio itself is a media center application that aggregates content from various sources through add-ons. Debrid services enhance this experience by:

1. Converting limited or slow hosting links into high-speed premium links
2. Providing access to higher quality sources that might otherwise be unavailable
3. Bypassing throttling and download limitations imposed by file hosts
4. Offering cached torrents for instant streaming without waiting for peers

sure, and that works at small scales and as long as no change is required.

when either of those two change (large projects where interdependent components become inevitable and frequent updates are necessary) it becomes impossible to use AI for basically anything.

any change you make then has to be carefully considered and weighed against it’s consequences, which AIs can’t do, because they can’t absorb the context of the entire project.

look, I’m not saying you can’t use AI, or that AI is entirely useless.

I’m saying that using AI is the same as any other tool; use it deliberately and for the right job at the right time.

the big problem, especially in commercial contexts, is people using AI without realizing these limitations, thinking it’s some magical genie that can everything.

yes, that’s exactly the point of everything I’ve said:

to an inexperienced user/developer/admin the output LLMs produce look perfectly valid, and for relatively trivial tasks they might even work out…but when it gets more specialized it fails spectacularly and it gets extremely obvious just how limited of a system it really is.

which is why there is so much pushback from professionals. actually that’s pretty much all professionals, not just in IT.

yeah, no… that’s not at all what i said.

i didn’t say “AI doesn’t work”, i said it works exactly as expected: producing bullshit.

i understand perfectly well how to get it to spit out useful information, because i know what i can and cannot ask it about.

I’d much rather not use it, but it’s pretty much unavoidable now, because of how trash search results have become, specifically for technical subjects.

what absolutely doesn’t work is asking AI to perform highly specific, production critical configurations on live systems.

you CAN use it to get general answers to general questions.

“what’s a common way to do this configuration?” works well enough.

“fix this config file for me!” doesn’t work, because it has no concept of what that means in your specific context. and no amount of increasingly specific prompts will ever get you there. …unless “there” is an utter clusterfuck, see the OP top of chain (should have been more specific here…) for proof…

no, AI just sucks ass with any highly customized environment, like network infrastructure, because it has exactly ZERO capacity for on-the-fly learning.

it can somewhat pretend to remember something, but most of the time it doesn’t work, and then people are so, so surprised when it spits out the most ridiculous config for a router, because all it did was string together the top answers on stack overflow from a decade ago, stripping out any and all context that makes it make sense, and presents it as a solution that seems plausible, but absolutely isn’t.

LLMs are literally design to trick people into thinking what they write makes sense.

they have no concept of actually making sense.

this is not an exception, or an improper use of the tech.

it’s an inherent, fundamental flaw.

ublock has the same function; it’s the thunderbolt icon, which let’s you just zap away whatever html element offends you!

…no fancy animation tho…is there a plugin that animates the ublock zapper? that would be very fun!

exactly!

using a “detector” is how (not all, but a lot of) AIs (LLMs, GenAI) are trained:

have one AI that’s a “student”, and one that’s a “teacher” and pit them against one another until the student fools the teacher nearly 100% of the time. this is what’s usually called “training” an AI.

one can do very funny things with this tech!

for anyone that wants to see this process in action, here’s a great example:

Benn Jorda: Breaking The Creepy AI in Police Cameras

afaik, there actually aren’t any reliable tools for this.

the highest accuracy rate I’ve seen reported for “AI detectors” is somewhere around 60%; barely better than a random guess…

edit: i think that way for text/LLM, to be fair.

kinda doubt images are much better though…happy to hear otherwise, if there are better ones!

you can just run battlenet through steam:

• add the installer as non-steam game
• set compatibility to proton experimental
• launch/install
• find the filepath for the battlenet .exe
• change the filepath for the target of the battlenet installer to the .exe instead
• never touch it again; it just works!

a tiny bit of effort, but only required once. everything afterwards just works!