Participants were 529 undergraduate business students with a mean age of 18.14 years
I find this participant set pointless.
Most kids who were with me in college dreamt of owning muscle cars and Harleys.
Fast forward 25 years: The same set, now in their 40s, get elevated blood pressure at the mere thought of having to share the road with a lifted truck.
At 20, while in the Marine Corps, I absolutely had to have a lifted orange Jeep.
decades later, it is cringe, and after a friend of a friend was killed by an idiot in a RAM truck, I'm 100% in favor of banning the "yank tank" style trucks
Nobody has a problem with companies using AI to edit articles, create images.
But when even the writer is an AI persona, the trust factor gets destroyed.
You evaluate the merits of the content? From a high-level systems pov, the article is largely correct, even if some details might be missed / simplified
How do you evaluate the merits of a graph of information? I usually read articles like this to learn something, not to grade someone else’s assignment.
As a lay person, I have limited knowledge of this field, yet am extremely interested.
Unfortunately AI gen content is being used widely to spread spurious information/fake news etc. So my knee jerk reaction to AI gen content is - "this is going to be fake".
If the information you are trying to convey is true, and is technical/objective in nature, then why shy away from associating your identify to it?
Right. I'd noticed that the first image, of the harmonic drive, was wrong. The flexible ring gear can't have a disc closely attached; that would kill the flexibility that makes the whole thing go. In some designs, the flexible ring gear is just a ring. The inside of the ring has to be smooth. The elliptical plug is way too small; it has to fit the ring gear.
Harmonic drives are confusing enough. It's amazing that they back-drive at all.
Anything wrong in the text? I'm out of date in this area, and I was reading this as a nice catch-up. What else did they get wrong?
It would be hard not to when you can type in amounts and get instant feedback on what you would make. I imagine him sitting there, typing in $1000 and seeing $3000 payout. Then thinking "What if I just took my $32,000 savings and put it on this bet?". Type that in, see $400k and think "I can't not do this!"
Special forces in America are somewhat famous at this point for having side hustles.. Betting on themselves like this is at least better than being murderous drug dealers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fort_Bragg_Cartel
Not that I am endorsing the behavior, but it is not a given how many high profile operations the soldier might glean in a time relevant manner. That might have been the one shot, one opportunity to hit big.
>The new rule, proposed by a government agency, would see men being registered automatically rather than being asked to do so themselves within 30 days of their 18th birthday.
Honest question: Why is there no such auto registration for women?
Women are currently not required or allowed to register for selective service. It doesn't make sense to automatically register them for something they're not allowed to register for.
Because it's a polite fiction that men and women are equally capable and expendable at warfare. Successful and enduring human societies practice traditions around warfare that reflect this.
It's more that women are the less expendable gender. If you send the women to die on the front lines, who is going to birth the next generation to replenish your population?
I mean, the mongols were probably the most successful military, taking on armies five times their size with better metalworks. They used women as fighters. Japanese Bushi ('samurai' class) also had women in their ranks, and Celtic traditions had women not only serving in the army, but very often as arms teachers (military instructor), and sometimes war leaders. Some of the army leaders who troubled Rome the most were women. You can also take a look at the Vikings if you want a fourth example.
The fact is, western military traditions it sexist for no good reason. Yes, the strongest woman will be weaker than the strongest man. Yes, it you take a sport like swordfighting, the best woman will be at the level of the 50th best man. But we're not talking about taking champions on a 1 on 1 duel here. We aren't even talking about fighting. What really matters in armies is endurance, and women are close enough to men on that that it shouldn't really matter.
And even if you want to think of war as a succession of duels, war have changed in the last century. Women are just better as shooting than men, especially when standing.
In fact, women tend to outdo men in extreme endurance competition. It’s part of the trade-off for a lower ceiling on absolute strength.
But yes, in modern warfare there are as many jobs if not more that require precision or some level of intelligence as those that require brute strength. Even if fewer of them are right at the front line, they’re just as important.
You don’t send a large percentage of women to the front line in wars of attrition because their deaths mean a greater loss of future reproductive capacity than men’s do. But the way countries like the US have waged war over the last 75 years (with a relatively small surface area of soldiers put directly at risk), that’s less of a consideration. The counterpoint might be a border war without massive air superiority on either side like the current one in Ukraine.
Not just endurance sports. Anecdotal evidence, but female rock climbers have been more skilled in my experience. Perhaps because the brute force escape hatch isn't as available.
Rock climbing is pretty weird. At the top level, it is clear male athletes have most advantages: height, and shoulder strength, that make routes designed for male very hard to compete on for most female athlete.
On the other hand, routes set for female athlete are also very hard for males to compete on. Some of them you can bruteforce (with strenght a la Janja, or with size), but some of them male joints just can't handle the rotations needed.
Still, a male athlete would do better on female route than a female athlete would on male routes imho (at the top level, at mine it just doesn't matter).
But when you're rock climbing in montains with people who have the same experience, yeah, women tends to do better. And even when you're the most experienced, women tends to get better faster especially when you're doing "multi-pitch climbing" (google translate on this, i hope that's right) for a few days in a row.
Why can’t Alphabet just leave Chrome alone? They already have so many cash cows.
Stuffing Chrome with AI gimmicks makes it clunky and unusable — and when that happens, people will just migrate to other browsers. Alphabet should revisit its own history and remember the great migration from Internet Explorer to Chrome.
AI features must be there, considering how much money has been spent into developing these features. However putting these features inside will drive people away from Chrome, while not putting these features inside will make shareholders angry because line is not going up.
> bsky.app | @greg.org on Bluesky
https://bsky.app/profile/greg.org/post/3lvt3mjvskk2i
Reported: 07 August, 2025 at 19:53
Shut down on: 07 August, 2025
Geoblocking due to OSA
Statue of |david behind age verification filter
So, going forward, will similar pieces of art be blocked in the British Museum as well? Like physically?
Or you can simply block people under 18 from the museum.
That's what Hungary did - no minors allowed in places where homosexuality could be on display.
No, that sense is not there, because we don't have any "no drugs for children" laws. Those don't exist - drugs are illegal across the board, unless they're prescribed, but prescription drugs are good for kids.
The closest thing we have is tobacco and alcohol. But that's still very far off.
Its true children can't buy alcohol, but they can't buy Internet access either. But, they can drink alcohol, and they can view the internet.
There's nothing stopping a parent from just giving little Timmy wine. All bets are off once you show ID at the corner store and go home.
Similarly, all bets are off after you show ID and proof of residence to your Teleco and they install Internet connection. ... Until now.
This is an entirely novel and never before seen type of law and type of reasoning. It may seem, on the surface, reasonable or done before. But if you think about it, it's not.
This isn't your typical brand of "think of the children".
> The closest thing we have is tobacco and alcohol. But that's still very far off.
Those are not far off, they are harmful drugs as well (despite being somewhat normalised).
The goal is not about stopping parent from giving child something, the goal is to minimise exposure and ability to get access to it as much as possible.
> Those are not far off, they are harmful drugs as well (despite being somewhat normalised).
They are extremely far off, and you chose to ignore why.
Its not because of harm or normalization. Its because what people are proposing here is fundamentally different than ID checking for cigs.
If I buy a pack, I can go home and immediately give them to a kid. If I wanted.
The store clerk does not follow me home. The ID checking happened at point of sale, and after that, all bets are off.
We actually already have this type of ID checking in place for the internet and have since the beginning.
To buy Internet, I must present ID and proof of residence. Once the internet is sold to me, all bets are off. It is my responsibility to not give it to my kid, in the same way it's my responsibility to put the vodka in the locked liquor cabinet.
What you're proposing is the equivalent of the store clerk following you home and staying in your house, watching you smoke the cigarettes to make sure you don't give it to any children.
The difference is that parents, rightfully, don't give out cigs like candy. But they DO give out internet access like candy.
That's because parents are stupid, not because the laws are broken. We don't extreme privacy violations, we just need people to get their head out of their ass.
And, anyone who claims kids need an Internet connection is lying through their teeth. No, they don't. For anything. I promise. No exceptions.
Oh oh but what about homework???.
Put a goddamn computer in your living room like it's 1997, don't tell your spoiled brat the internet password, and problem solved. Its that easy. No 1984 required.
Oh oh but what about phones??? Little Timmy is gonna die on the 14 second walk from the bus to my front door!!
Go to Walmart, but a prepaid cricket phone, and give it to them. There, I solved your problem and saved you 900 dollars.
I'm in the UK and that tweet and profile aren't blocked (not even an ID wall).
Likewise for every Reddit link and probably more.
I wish the website made a better effort at filtering those because it muddies the point when the government can point out that half of the list is actually accessible in the UK (even if some are behind an ID wall).
