The average American philosophy undergrad gets very little of any philosopher pre-Russell other than a very skewed review of Aristotle. I have no idea about Canada, and there are some exceptions in the US, but average philosophy undergrad will get a very cursory skimming of pre-analytic thought, with basically none I've ever met having read Kant's first Critique, much less Hegel or any 20th century continental philosopher. Instead they are mostly moved into the only things analytics care about: logic and ethics. The former because they are always temporarily embarrassed mathematicians and the latter because teaching students the sophistry needed to morally justify building bombs for Raytheon that kill thousands of poor people is the bread and butter that keeps American philosophy departments funded. About metaphysics, ontology, etc., they care not at all. Those fields tend to try their best at ambitious answers to unanswerable questions whereas the analytics strive for unusable answers to banal questions.
td;dr: I think you give Anglo philosophy students FAR too much credit. In my experience they aren't well read at all and their departments are staffed by professors who aren't well read.
You would think that articles lamenting the vicissitudes of the AI's impact on the internet would avoid using very obvious AI copy, but I guess it's too tempting to just not do any work.
I think any English language post about philosophy majors should be assumed to be about analytics.
>how to clarify your thoughts, say what you mean in precise terms, and make clear arguments
This is a little generous. Analytic philosophy often comes across as people using heinous amounts of ink to argue whether a hot dog is technically a taco all while pretending that only a fool would even consider what it tastes like.
Most people grew up taking Tylenol as kids for various things and it was never a new medicine to them that they felt the need to read. Also, there's a huge difference between "don't take this with alcohol, it will make you more drowsy" and "even one beer with this will start fucking your liver up don't even think about it". I think people associate the latter with more intense medication than some OTC mild pain meds.
Acetaminophen should be treated with more caution in general. So many people have reacted with shock and upset when I told them that taking Tylenol (or anything with acetaminophen in it like Dayquil/Nyquil) while drinking can cause immediate liver damage.
She was probably repeating behaviors she learned in academia. These kinds of extremely toxic "don't just apologize for disagreeing with me but also give me the name of every person involved for collective punishment" is a classic move for academic tyrants throwing weight around. The understanding there is that they will then move to cut off every named person from power or access to academic resources. Google did the right thing by protecting their people.
I have watched it happen multiple times that someone from academia joins a research group at a large corporation and finds out to their chagrin that they can't just overtly bully colleagues as easily without tenure.
edit: And it looks like Mitchell immediately left an angry comment about being called a "linguist" despite the article never doing so. Starting to notice a pattern of confrontation, ego, and escalation among some of these people.
If you try to use empiricism when it comes to certain groups audiophiles, you are going to be sorely reminded that it's basically the equivalent of healing crystals for a different type of person. 24/192 is useful for mixing/mastering, but completely unnecessary for the end product to distribute for listening.
"Terrorist" is a floating signifier; it is not a term used by educated people intending other educated adults to discuss it. It's a term used by either the cynical or the dimwitted to elicit emotional responses from an audience that's commensurately ignorant or cruel. Saying "ah they deserved it because they were terrorists" is begging the question.
In Houston they also sell boiled crawfish by the pound during crawfish season so you can have a big crawfish dinner with you and your friends without the whole process of making them yourself.
The catch is that, like the crawfish, their BBQ is pretty mid. So if you want great BBQ, you gotta drive a mile or two to a real BBQ place. But if you want some brisket before you do your grocery shopping, it hits the spot.
AI will generally err on the side of slavishly copying any reference. I'm having this problem at work lately. Teammates will be asked to implement a new module for <new data integration> into the codebase, and they'll just point Claude at it and say "integrate <new thing> into this codebase" in one shot and what it will do is create a function for function clone of the first data integration's client, down to implementing copies of the private utility methods.
My favorite high tech AI was Crysis. Might have been an update after it was originally released. The enemies will aggressively attack but then get quiet after you've taken cover. Eventually you'll realize some of them are flanking you while others keep suppressing fire on you to stop you from moving. You can hear them yelling to one another. Very cool touches.
Maybe I'm missing something because I really haven't studied this issue much at all, but would it not be possible to designate some new character as "START_ROLE_TAG" and "END_ROLE_TAG", and then to strip those in any data put into tool responses? I know that stripping unwanted characters is its own tedious ordeal, but it just seems very odd to me to have role tags not only easily spoofable but so similar to acceptable tags like HTML that stripping them from tool output produces issues.
I wasn't making a scientific statement about whether depopulating the deer will help; the governor of Massachusetts already did. I'm saying that it's pathetic to blame it all on deer and then not eliminate the pointlessly onerous burden on culling their population.
But since you're being needlessly snarky about it (it's not productive to suggest killing "the rabbits and chipmunks and mice and squirrels"), here:
>After hunts were initiated, number and frequency of deer observations in the community were greatly reduced as were resident-reported cases of Lyme disease. Number of resident-reported cases of Lyme disease per 100 households was strongly correlated to deer density in the community. Reducing deer density to 5.1 deer per square kilometer resulted in a 76% reduction in tick abundance, 70% reduction in the entomological risk index, and 80% reduction in resident-reported cases of Lyme disease in the community from before to after a hunt was initiated.