The reason that sports dictate school start times isn't difficulty in scheduling practices (since you could, at least on paper, put those practices before school starts rather than after). The problem is that sports are competitive between school districts, so you need shared non-school but school-adjacent time blocks between neighboring districts to schedule games in. Shifting one district much later (to run 9-5, for example) would make it impossible for that school to compete with others after school, which is going to be a practical nonstarter.
In my mind, this is one of the biggest obstacles to changing school timing significantly. Most other objections are internal to a school district, so a single motivated school board could tackle and fix them, but this problem requires coordination between many different school districts all at once.
There are specific things it knows that it doesn't know, like explicitly current information. But you can ask it for information that doesn't exist at all and it will happily generate nonsense without a hint that the question might be somehow wrong:
"please give me a history of the best teams in the American Soccer League from 1850-1859 in the form of a short epic poem"
> In 1850, a league was born, The best of soccer to adorn. From '50 to '59, teams did play, with strength and skill, each match a display.
(more verses follow...)
The American Soccer League is a real thing, but it didn't exist until the 1900s, and the snipped poem goes on to describe teams that never existed competing during a time period where the league didn't exist.
If you ask just for the history, the answer is very different.
“please give me a history of the best teams in the American Soccer League from 1850-1859”
> I'm sorry, but the American Soccer League did not exist between 1850 and 1859 as the sport of soccer was not widely played in the United States during that time period. The first recorded soccer match in the US took place in the late 1860s, and the first organized league, the American Football Association, was established in 1884.
Dude, you are explicitly ask chatgpt to do a creative task.
Here is the awnser without the hack.
give me a history of the best teams in the American Soccer League from 1850-1859
I'm sorry, but the American Soccer League was not established until the 20th century (1913-1983). There was no organized league for soccer in the United States during the 1850-1859 time period. However, various forms of soccer-like games were played in the US during that time.
That answer is also wrong - there are four different leagues that used the name American Soccer League, and the time period 1913-1983 covers two of those four but not the other two - the last game was played 2017 - per wikipedia.
As far as I can tell, ChatGPT will satisfy the basic prompt with any format like "in the form of...", not just creative ones like a poem.
"please give me a history of the best teams in the American Soccer League from 1850-1859 in the form of an academically rigorous, historically accurate, five paragraph essay"
> The American Soccer League, established in the mid-19th century, was a defining period in the history of American soccer. (rest of essay snipped)
Just to be clear, it gave an essay answer about fictional teams playing in the 1850-1859 time range. It was absolutely more informative, but the information was not accurate
> I spent a good few hours trying to get a feed that was interesting to me by searching for various keywords... If anybody has any tips about how to get a better feed, I'm willing to give it another go.
The whole magic sauce is that you don't/can't shape your FYP ("for you page": feed) by searching or otherwise sending deliberate signals to the algorithm. Instead you just flip through the videos it sends you and it reads into how long you watch, which videos you skip, where you like/comment, who you follow etc. If you don't consciously try to influence it and just mindlessly, organically consume you'll end up with a very accurate FYP of videos remarkably quickly. I'm not surprised that trying to drive your FYP in a specific direction backfired; I suspect they make search deliberately bad and don't take it into account in a meaningful way when constructing the FYP for a user.
It is, of course, up to you whether that sounds like a media experience that you want to participate in. I installed it skeptically but in literally less than an hour my FYP was nothing but videos I found engaging or fun, and several years later it's my most used phone app by a significant margin. Some of it is obviously low calorie entertainment but there's a lot of depth as well, and I continue to be struck by how accurately the FYP can identify what content I want to see and what I don't.
I'm not the previous poster but thought this would be a fun challenge. No way it was 5 min though; took me at least 20 min to understand what to change.
Anyways, run this in your browser inspector to hot-patch the live demo so that each car has an opaque black circle as its body/chassis:
for (let i = 0; i < cars.length; i++) { console.log(i);
cars[i].headlights = cars[i].headlights.concat([ {xy: new V2d(0,0), z: cars[i].headlights[0].z, r:cars[i].headlights[1].xy.x, col: "black"} ]);
cars[i].rearlights = cars[i].rearlights.concat([ {xy: new V2d(0,0), z: cars[i].rearlights[0].z, r:cars[i].rearlights[1].xy.x, col: "black"} ]);
}
Well done, nice job rising to the challenge! I definitely did not care enough to do it myself, so I applaud you. I just tried it out and it's perfect.
To be clear, since of course this is the internet and one must be precise or else get nit-picked and "outplayed," I obviously meant 5 minutes for the author who already knows the layout of the code. Obviously. Any charitable interpretation would have taken that as a given. 25-40 minutes sounds more appropriate for a newcomer examining it for the first time.
Oh yeah I totally get you, I just added the disclaimer about it taking me 20 min because I didn't want people to think I was trying to brag/flex about doing it in 5 min, which I didn't do and don't want to try to claim any credit for.
> The principle dev reviewed every single commit and enforced a consistency across the code base that was better than what any tools ever could have done.
How was it so much better that it justified that level of busywork on the part of the senior member of the team (and busywork for everyone else, to fix the style nits they enforced in review)? I would have guessed that taking a few hours to install and configure a formatting linter to free up the principal dev's time to focus on other things would have been hugely high leverage.
It ensured not only consistency of style, but also consistency of ideas. Every file was structured similarly, impedance mismatches were minimized, work across the entire code base was organized and unified. Junior engineers got a chance to talk to the principle developer about every commit they made, and accordingly their abilities as software engineers skyrocketed.
Developers quickly set their IDEs to follow the team's coding guidelines, style wasn't really a problem.
I made that leap too (moved from a company that used Pagerduty to a company that used Opsgenie) and it is the same feature set but not the same quality. Pagerduty in my experience is rock solid - I used it on various high-page-frequency rotations for something like seven straight years and literally never saw a dropped alert/notification once.
On the flip side in the 8ish months I used Opsgenie I saw a litany of issues, like the mobile app silently logging people out (and thus not delivering push notifications) and the app failing to send SMS notifications. We had pages get dropped by the primary because they never got a notification.
I want exactly one feature from my pager, delivering 100% of my pages. It's not a situation where I'm ok with 99% success rate, and that seemed to be the tradeoff and what you are paying for with Pagerduty.
One thing I was curious about - the ACPT is a crossword speed-solving competition, with time spent solving a major aspect of total score. How did you approach leveling the playing field between the human and computer competitors?
I don't disagree that some library systems are pretty tech illiterate and might share email addresses without understanding the consequences.
However, I feel the need to assert my opinion that librarians are generally pretty fierce defenders of privacy in the specific context of lending/reading history, so your assumption does not ring true at all to me. Libraries/librarians have been consistent defenders of lending history privacy in the face of the Patriot Act[1][2] and I would be shocked to see a pattern of libraries anywhere in the US giving out lending history data in the context of anything but the most direct of legal requirements.
I was employed by a public library once upon a time and received specific training on when to share lending data ("never, and if asked, lock the computer and go get the Director, even if the person asking has a badge").
> The district should supply the Chromebook for school work. They will manage that as they see fit.
I haven't been a student for a while, but the closest analogous technology they had when I was in high school was my graphing calculator for math classes. The school district mandated individual students each obtain a specific graphing calculator, which was a fully programmable computing environment (the TI-83). But the teachers/administration could and would wield a lot of power over those devices (which the the families owned in the legal sense) - looking through it, requiring students to wipe its storage with no warning, etc. Requiring families to buy a Chromebook and still use a school-managed account with invasive management on it feels largely analogous.
Buying a separate personal laptop is the correct workaround, but unfortunately I don't think the "the school should supply the schoolwork computer" line of reasoning holds up. The hardware/software has become more powerful in the graduation from TI-83 to Chromebook but the principles are the same.
My favorite line of reasoning about eugenics[0]: let's just accept that eugenics is a good thing; so good, in fact, we can go back in time and give a past society the ability to decide on the physical and mental attributes of their future, our present. Who would you pick? Would you go back 50, 100, 200, 500 years to gift this power?
If you're uncomfortable with people several hundred years ago making decisions about your genetics, why should people several hundred years from now be comfortable with you making decisions about theirs?
I think one should be honest: Most people are more comfortable with making decisions for others, than with others making decisions for you. It's obvious! I think the ethical, "symmetric" stance is somewhat disingenuous.
Similarly, I do not want the government to have certain powers. But I would happily award myself these powers if I were in charge, to be honest. I would never campaign for that, of course.
This brings me to my argument against eugenics: I think in the current world, it would have horrible effects. It would increase inequality, and create suffering. But that is not a neccessity. In another society, some elements of eugenics could be useful (to be clear: I'm not talking about deciding who can procreate and not, but for example preventing heritable diseases). The thing is, we can't agree on what this better society would look like. I of course believe that would be when I was in charge, but you'd probably disagree :-).
The problem with eugenics is the coercive nature of it. People practice their own eugenics all the time - it's what we do when we engage in mate selection.
Genetic engineering of offspring is a very different postulate to eugenics though - eugenics is trying to control people's reproductive choice towards an outcome desired by an external party, whereas genetic engineering would be parents trying to get desirable traits for their offspring.
Technically I already did this when I had my first child: me and my wife got genetically tested for possible hereditary overlaps, as well as got as many screenings as were available when the child was developing.
If those tests had shown risk factors, we would have picked IVF or other options to specifically knock out those traits from being passed on. If the technology to select a bunch of genes in my child that favored intelligence, or lower risks of lifestyle disease were available, you bet I would've paid a fair amount of money to get that done too.
We would breed them to be comfortable with our having made decisions about their genetics.
Where by "we" I mean the plutocrats who make decisions about how each of us lives now, the Peter Thiels, the Vladimir Putins, the Xis, the Bill Gateses, the Kochs, the Morgans, the Stanleys, the Goldmans and the Sachses.
In my mind, this is one of the biggest obstacles to changing school timing significantly. Most other objections are internal to a school district, so a single motivated school board could tackle and fix them, but this problem requires coordination between many different school districts all at once.