Do different kids get different meals in US schools? I mean for non-medical or dietary purposes? The article doesn't seem to be very clear on that... Is it that when the school's debt gets to a certain point, all kids' meals are replaced by "alternative meals"? Or do some kids' meals only get switched? If so what is the deciding criterion?
Varies enormously between states and school districts.
In our public elementary school, there are two or three options each day: a hot meal of some sort, some days a hot vegetarian meal, and a salad bar that kids can choose what they want from (which usually includes some options that you wouldn't call "salad").
It's not fine dining, but the quality and variety is generally pretty decent. The kids have accounts, and parents are expected to refill a negative balance, but every kid gets the lunch of their choice regardless.
I believe the current rules ( https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp ) require the schools to make some effort to avoid certain allergens.
When my children were in school, their school said that anybody who didn’t have lunch would be given a “sun butter” sandwich and food from the cafeteria. I wasn’t familiar with sun butter; it’s peanut butter made from sunflower seeds, because people allergic to peanuts may not be allergic to sunflower seeds.
Only in some places. In others (like ours) they can keep buying lunch when they've a debt. The kid just can't buy side items (junk food like cookies, ice cream, chips, soda)
It's not the school's debt, it's individual families. If they fall behind on lunch fees, their children have to eat cold meals.
> Do different kids get different meals in US schools? I mean for non-medical or dietary purposes?
Depends. US schools are run by the states, so it varies from place to place. As other commenters have said, some states just fund lunch so debt isn't an issue. I'm sure some accommodate dietary requirements & preferences more than others.
My experience was that if you have specific requirements that the school can't meet, you just bring your own lunch. If you're lucky enough to have organized parents.
Lots of documents have to be styled in a very particular way. These rules aren’t laws of physics, they’re made by humans to make other people’s lives more miserable than it’s necessary
Absolute most of the time what is offered by markdown is enough.
When doing my thesis I was asking myself “is it really that important to use 16pt font or 14pt one or this is a made up rule because someone said so many years ago”
I don't think this has anything to do with using AI for prep. 20 years ago I was interviewing candidates who had somewhat lied on their resume, knew some of the things that they'd written about, but had everything fall apart under a little more questioning of what exactly they'd done and why.
I think the difference is that you used to need a certain knowledge to be able to bullshit. You could still do it, but it would mainly be to embellish stuff you already somewhat know. With LLMs, it's easy to make it write a whole page of interview prep you can use to hide your tracks, without any prior knowledge. My guess is they saw that kapwing wanted experience in X,Y,Z and made an LLM create projects that sounds real in a way you otherwise wouldn't be able to do as easily.
> but it had been some time ago, and they never worked on any of the features
It appears that the candidate might have actually worked on the daycare app, but not on what they said they worked - i.e., the ratelimiting and pagination. It appears that they might have been working on the frontend, and took the liberty of "expanding" their role - this used to be extremely common in a big sample of the resumes, and I'm guessing it still is. They might have used AI to prep - they used to use google earlier, but the prep was (and is) still inadequate if you've not actually worked on and implemented it. I don't think it was an entirely LLM created project...
Well I guess if the candidate would be a little be stronger and actually trying to reason with the LLM about the decision it suggested, he would be better prepared and maybe got away with his claims.
Or as current best chess player Magnus Carlson said, "if I would cheat, you would never know". Meaning very strong candidates will get away with flexing the truth with AI. But this means maybe, you shouldn't look for a perfect fit. Or check his merit by spending time and money to get in touch with his old companies.
Yeah.. but if he didn't actually work exactly on it, but took the effort to learn from coworkers (or LLMs or google or wherever) and is able to answer my questions on what he did, and more importantly on why he decided to do something a certain way and not some other way, then he/she must have spent considerable amount of time actually learning about it and figuring things out. So I'd still hire him/her. The trouble is most people who embellish are either not competent to go deep enough to learn, or think that they can get away with some superficial knowledge of it.
Wouldn't be surprised if the whole post was actually written up by AI as a "subtle" way of promoting the company, fueled by riding out the outrage from hiring managers on linkedin
Maybe they'll come up with a solution that requires you to turn on your camera while on youtube so that they can detect if you have your eyes and ears unblocked during ads. Blocked-eyes-blocked-ears detected = popup that pauses the video and asks you to unblock before continuing.
In India, these are called "cloud kitchens." A single cloud kitchen could be listed on a food delivery app under multiple brands - one brand for chinese cuisine, one for italian, etc.
There are 'cloud kitchens' im California that have 30 to 40 "kitchens" at the same address, different apps. The largest on just has a double stove and cooks meat, side by side as the most kitchy vegitarian meals. The two roast beef sandwiches cost less than the salad, but the delivery driver could not hand us the food on premises. We walked outside and we're handed the meals. ( The vegitarian salad was in a separate bag ).
To be even more clear, it's Hindu nationalist propaganda, and not a serious academic paper, and there's a reason it was never published in a reputable journal.
I use X to mostly follow politics and some math/physics, and the political feed in the "For you" tab is remarkably balanced. I actually maintain two separate lists called "Left" and "Right" that I slot accounts into, and I just go to each list's feed to see what each side is saying about something. The "For you" tab has a mix, and overall has been pretty well balanced.
I know that Twitter is US site but I still find it strange when people talk about balanced political views and talk only about 2-sides. Yes it is one more than in China but still...
I'm not from the US, but from India, and it's the same here. "Left" and "Right" may be misnomers, but there are effectively two main blocks at the national level, and supporters of each block get slotted into one of the two. Of course there are disagreements between members within each of the two blocks, but ultimately all the fine distinctions boil down to which of these two a voter would choose!
It really is unique to everyone and who they follow.
But when the US election came around all of our business For You feeds switched to political, far-right content even though we are not in the US nor political. And the fact that the EU is investigating X for its algorithm changes means at least some other people have had the same experience.
That's not balanced though. Only a small subset of people decides to actively talk about politics on social media. So most likely you see just the opinions of radicalized cronically online left-wing people and the opinions of radicalized cronically online right-wing people. None of those represent the real world and their arguments are almost always a repetition of the same bad-faith take on the current issue, just to get easy engagement from their community. It's not really a representative (or healthy) window to society.
That's the trap of politics on social media, they give you the illusion that you get a pulse of what society is thinking, when you actually just see a very vocal minority repeating the same arguments over and over again.
