I bought a remarkably similar mug (last advert shown) from an add from different site [1]. Everything about it was a fake. Almost every feature they advertised did not exist (including the fact that it did not come in a gift box.) That was from a site I visit a lot and I wanted to show support. BTW the AI generated animation is quite cool, too bad it is not real...
I am surprised you could look at that page and expect to receive a quality product. The images all look like really low grade AI-generated renderings. The mug in the cupholder and the giftbox image in particular don't stand up to even casual scrutiny.
Not trying to make your situation worse, I just find it interesting what these sites are able to get away with to get people to part with their money.
Just as there's a cottage industry for "I made the game the scam ads show" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRDhiN50Vo0 I think there will soon be a cottage industry for "the scam ad was good, let's make it for real".
That mug is amusing but it should't be too hard for China to make something similar - but real (at least without the weird piston).
I'd argue that the laws that must be obeyed form an odd superset of the laws of the nation from where the organization is operating and the laws where the users are located. Where those laws intersect nicely, the mode of operation is clearly defined, where they do not intersect, the mode of operation becomes very tricky. (As we've seen with privacy, cookie laws, etc.)
*One consequence of this boom in AI use is that, in my online classes, I can no longer be sure of what my students are learning. I have no way of determining which concepts they are grasping and which are proving elusive.*
As someone who regularly interviews students for jobs, it is clear that the universities that have permissive use of AI for assignment completion produce graduates that know very little about the core concepts of their studies. Many students cannot explain simple concepts and base level assignments take significantly longer.
As a former college student who took online courses as well, I can assure you that in the years before ChatGPT, at least half (if not more) of the students could not explain the core concepts of their studies either.
And there is the answer. You are talking to the students. Post author complains he has no way of determining whether they’re picking up what he’s putting down. Maybe he should try talking to them.
on the other hand, they might produce students that know how to use AI tools, and in the long-term that might be what businesses prefer – employees who know how to use AI, not employees who have memorized facts in school.
On the third hand, it’s hard to develop meta-level skills—nuanced judgment and wisdom in a domain—without engaging over a long period with the peas-and-carrots aspects of the domain. I guess it’s kind of the “where’s our next crop of senior engineers going to come from?” worry around these parts.
Then again maybe you’re right, maybe AI Operator is the domain where it’s important to develop meta-skills now. I can’t imagine someone who chose to use their school years specializing in that is anybody I’d want to hire or work with, though: it would seem to signal an incurious and timid mind, one that chose to optimize for metrics (grades) rather than the substance of the work at hand. But that bias is the same reason I don’t thrive in large corporate environments in the first place.
Still I have a hard time imagining that AI Operation skills take enough developing to be worth somebody’s time to specialize in as a student. Could just be old-fashioned, though—spoken like an outsider ignorant of the finer points of AI Operation...
But the AI tools are extremely easy to use, and their usability improves over time.
Of course the businesses prefer the commoditization of the employees, — if everyone uses AI anyway, why not hire the cheapest possible candidates?
For the employees this situation is beyond catastrophic. So maybe memorizing facts in school to gain some competitive edge is even more valuable in this setting.
I've never heard someone use the long scale, it is only ever mentioned as a novelty. I think the scientific community, at the very least, has standardized on the short scale.
The long scale is far from just a novelty, most European countries other than the UK use it. Actually I thought it was used in all non-English-speaking countries, but Wikipedia showed me that the situation is far more complicated than I thought:
Besides short scale and long scale, there is a sizable "short scale with milliard instead of billion" fraction, and of course some countries (China, India, Japan, Greece) have completely different systems. Most interesting is that Portugal uses the long scale, while Brazil uses the short scale. That must be confusing...
almost all scientific writing i can find from people in portugal uses the short scale. english formal communication has standardized around the short scale
> All scientific writing in Slovenia uses long scale. I've heard it being used in EU institutions too.
I am able to easily find plenty of Slovenian academics using short scale in their scientific writing. Remember, English is standard for scientific writing and publishing in international journals. I have yet to find a single one using the long-scale, actually.
> observations by cataloging positions and redshifts of billions of galaxies in the next
decade
> and the configuration is stable over billions of years.
> (networks having up to a billion of vertices; there is no limit—except the memory size—on the number of lines
The long scale is common in French, German and Spanish for example. English usually uses the short scale. The scientific community uses SI prefixes, which aren't part of either scale (you don't say a billion joules which is ambiguous, you either say a terajoule for a long-scale billion or a gigajoule for a short-scale one).
My country uses long scale. I've never seen long scale used in English, so I don't think it's ambiguous.
But! When non-native speakers read news, they are not always completely fluent in English, or even aware the short scale exists. This is true even for journalists. I've seen articles written in a serious newspapers where a journalist confused "billion" and "trillion", because they incorrectly translated English "billion" to my language "bilion". Journalists! A cross-cultural mistake not unlike foots vs meters.
So that's one thing to consider if one wants to avoid miscommunication at all cost. I'm not sure if it is important enough to take into account - after all people should know better.
Are those papers in English? Long scale may be translated to short scale if the paper is translated from the original language where long scale is common.
yes, i'm talking about the scientific community - papers are almost exclusively published in english or with an english version. long scale translated to short scale would be a mistranslation, imo
OTOH the phrase “a thousand million” for 10⁹ is not that uncommon.
From what I've seen, in places where billions/trillions are mentioned and it's important that the number is accurately specified, a representation with digits or the exponent of 10 are typically provided.
Died out in English. Not in other languages where long scale was and is used, that hasn't changed at all. I'm not aware of any other language shifting from long scale to short scale (for languages traditionally using long scale).
“Scientifically standard” are the SI prefixes. So, given the ambiguity of what 1 gigastar is (1/1000th of 1 terastar or a really huge star?) one should say “10¹²s of stars” maybe.
As a Unity developer, first this year our account manager told us our yearly fees were about to double and now runtime fees. One of the reasons we picked Unity was because of the fact they advertised (loudly) about the lack of runtime fees.
I’m guessing the reason this is brought up is because of the concern about if the license server goes down or the company goes out of business can I still use the product.
That would make sense! Could we use today an usb stick (similar to the digital wallet ones) to “validate” the ownership without relying on a server, like cd+license did 15 years ago?
Many of these want to know your revenue and then make a sales proposal based on your total revenue. This is frustrating for companies where software is a tiny proportion of the products/services. Example: recently tried to license software that wanted 1% of our sales when software makes up 0.003% of our sales by volume. I now don't even try to negotiate with these types of folks.
Company: builds automated warehousing facilities (both hardware and software)
Team: makes an emulation/simulation software system - requires developers that can write incredibly tight code, simulating some of the largest warehouse distribution facilities on the planet. Small team, with a big impact. https://dematic.com/virtual
Tech Stack: C# with the Unity3D engine
Please email careers@dematic.com for more information and reference the "Senior Unity3D Simulation Development" position.
Do not buy this!! [1] https://kenmiso.com/products/%E2%9A%A1%E2%9C%A8ultimate-v8-e...