All the text books I've ever seen had practical examples in them.
Like determining the height of a tree or a house simply based on trigonometry.
Your suggestion is interesting but I am not convinced that a student would be helped by aligning the examples with their interests.
I could see a student asking how trig relates to computer games and the example the LLM generates becoming much more involved.
I see no problem with the examples being boring. The people that developed these techniques had such fundamental problems to solve and the wonder to me is the human mind that came up with these
methods.
All this to say, maybe we lack appreciation for the fundamental sciences that underpin every aspect of our modern lives.
Survival of the fittest should apply to businesses above anything.
If a business can't handle the regulations to not pollute water then it's a clear cut case.
This is all the symptom of laziness of the mind.
There is resistance to change, adapt and make the world a better place not just for this, but future generations.
There is no leadership in the US, no vision, no drive. The excessive wealth has created a leading class that happily rests on the laurels of prior generations while squandering the future.
This problem extends to all citizens, beyond the weak and needy, and permeates all levels of government from small to big.
I live in one of the best school districts in the US, and when I see the food the children are served I am surprised this is acceptable.
But this is what the US is, extract as much money from people while providing sub standard service. All in-the name of the free market and shareholder value.
No! Ignoring a stop sign is such a basic driving standard that it's an automatic disqualification.
A driver that misses a stop sign would not have my kids in their car.
They could be the safest driver on the racetrack it does not matter at that point.
Ignoring a stop sign, not even slowing down, thats a major safety flaw.
I am wondering if there is a safety certification body for self driving technology.
If not, one is needed because consumers can't be expected
to be aware of all the limitations of the latest update they have installed.
There must be basic safety standards these systems need to meet, a disclaimer can't be the solution here.
Management has different layers with different goals.
A middle manager and a director certainly care a lot about accomplishing short term goals and are ok with tech debt to meet the goals.
A lot of it is perception. Writing software was long considered somewhat difficult and that it required smart people to do so.
AI changes this perception and coding starts to be perceived as a low level task that anyone can do easily with augmentation from AI tools.
I certainly agree that writing software is turning more into a factory job and is less intellectually rewarding now.
AI needs to be trained, it cannot create knowledge in a vacuum.
I think that's why there will always be some augmentation by humans to provide the context and the knowledge
At a high level culture is about how people operate within.
It's not good or bad per se but rather how your personality fits into that working style.
For instance some companies put a big emphasis on ownership, which means that everyone will be chasing work like a hungry animal to get it done.
This attracts people with ambition and drive, which as a consequence also makes the workplace toxic if there are too many ambitious people.
My take is that culture requires balance, you need different personality types to create that balance in a team and end up with a good culture.
All this to say, the more a company talks about culture the worse their culture is.
They should also require background checks for gun safes.