A sudden materialization is what's depicted by the data.
> It's been steadily getting worse.
I don't believe this is accurate. Failing grades are what the observation entails, and the data clearly depict an abrupt change; not a gradual one.
In the section titled "Failing grades in 3 CS classes skyrocket in spring 2026
", there's a clear jump in failing grades for all cited courses between 2025 and 2026. Failing grades for every course jump by multiples of the previous year.
I'm having a difficult time imagining how an admissions event in 2021 materializes in the spring semester of 2026 in a class largely taken by first-year students.
To be honest, this comment reads to me like LLM output.
You have a history of comments that were clearly written by a human, with character, but this comment stands out to me as an outlier. It has that semi-neutral, slightly pontificating tone of an LLM that just feels off in a way that's difficult to articulate.
I truly mean no offense. There's clearly a human behind this account.
It's interesting that even people who are anti-Flock have been convinced to refer to Flock's camera products as automatic license plate readers (ALPRs).
This is similar to how Google has convinced Android users to refer to installing apps from stores other than the Play Store as "side-loading". It's a distraction.
Make no mistake -- Flock cameras are mass-surveillance tools with the ancillary use case of automatic license plate reading. I encourage anyone discussing these products not to refer to them as ALPRs, unless specifically discussing their license plate reading functionality.
I may be imagining this, but I'm nearly certain I was running dillo on a PDA (I want to say Palm Treo) around 2001. I remember it feeling revolutionary to open up a webpage on something other than my linux desktop computer at the time. Over Wifi!
As dumb and useless as I think Grok is, I think you've identified what actually happened, which is significantly more benign than asking a 10 year old for nudes.
Sometimes it's used in the expected way, but (more?) often, "international community" euphemistically refers to whomever is currently one of, or an ally of the above mentioned countries.
Tokens are an implementation detail that have no business being part of product pricing.
It's deliberate obfuscation. First, there's the simple math of converting tokens to dollars. This is easy enough; people are familiar with "credits". Credits can be obfuscation, but at least they're honest. The second and more difficult obfuscation to untangle is how one converts "tokens" to "value".
When the value customers receive from tokens slips, they pay the same price for the service. But generative AI companies are under no obligation to refund anything, because the customer paid for tokens, and they got tokens in return. Customers have to trust that they're being given the highest quality tokens the provider can generate. I don't have that trust.
Additionally, they have to trust that generative AI companies aren't padding results with superfluous tokens to hit revenue targets. We've all seen how much fluff is in default LLM responses.
Pinky promises don't make for healthy business relationships.
Unless you used different language for the bet, you lost it the moment it was made.
"Never" may be falsified by "at least once", but affirmed only by "never". So I'm afraid only you could have ever been on the hook for the $1M, and may still be!
It's a decent question. I believe there's a simple answer that explains a large part of the reason people choose databases over flat files. People want ACID compliance _and_ data distribution, and databases are traditionally the only things that provide both.
a) The issue with Microsoft was that it had a monopoly in operating systems. At the time it was about ~95% market share. Gates woke up one morning, decided web apps were a threat to this, saw Netscape as their major competitor and decided to eliminate them. It didn't try to compete with them. It went straight for elimination by bundling IE and coercing OEMs e.g Compaq to not bundle Netscape. Using a monopoly in one market to force a monopoly in another is exactly what the laws were designed to prevent.
I don't dispute these facts. And I don't think they dispute my comment. By mentioning US v. Microsoft, I pointed out that there are similarities between Microsoft in the 90s and Apple today.
> b) Global and domestic iMessage usage is relevant. In fact it is the whole point. You need to demonstrate that there is an absence or distortion of a market for anti-trust laws to be applied.
Thank you for the correction.
> c) Apple is not trying to eliminate Beeper, they have no monopoly in anything and there is clear evidence of a fair and functioning market by the presence of WhatsApp, Messenger, Telegram, Signal etc.
Unless one can believe that Apple is both willing to block Beeper and not eliminate it, then Apple is trying to eliminate Beeper as a Messenger competitor. From their statement: "We took steps to protect our users by blocking techniques that exploit fake credentials in order to gain access to iMessage."
I think Apple has a reasonable argument for doing so. Though, in a world where Apple controls the only App Store where iOS users are blocked from downloading alternative SMS applications, they do hold a monopoly over both how iOS users install applications, and the only SMS application available on iOS: Messenger. Non-iOS users who want to message iOS users with the same quality of service as iMessages may only do so by installing 3rd party software. Otherwise they need to implicitly agree to having messages treated as second class, to Apple's likely enrichment. I think reasonable people can perceive some amount of anti-competitive intent in Apple's action. Should Apple be able to block 3rd parties from using the iMessage service infrastructure? Possibly, but it's hard to argue that doing so is pro-competition.
I think most of the concern over Apple's refusal to admit 3rd party iMessage clients will be eliminated if and when they make good on their promise to support RCS next year.
But I do believe there's reason to consider Apple's policy relative to iMessage clients monopolistic. Apple's behavior is not significantly different from Microsoft's, which instigated US v. Microsoft [1]. That case largely took issue with Microsoft's mandatory bundling of IE with Windows and the extent to which Microsoft created an inorganic monopoly. In addition to how Microsoft's monopoly came to be one, the judge also took issue with Microsoft's methodology in quashing threats to that monopoly. One could claim that Apple is taking similar quashing action relative to Beeper now.
Microsoft of course appealed the judgement, and prevailed. But they prevailed only because the judge had broken his code of conduct in discussing the case with media; not because Microsoft's behavior was not monopolistic.
I don't believe global or domestic iMessenger usage is relevant.
Front-running efficacy can be measured in milliseconds. It's a world where microwave towers sometimes replace fiber lines, to gain a few milliseconds of advantage. That is, when the front-runner isn't "in-house", which Alameda had ample opportunity to be. Alameda and FTX were separate legal entities, but Sam largely headed both. Alameda front-running servers, in theory, could have been running right along side FTX servers, with only inches of network-induced latency.
You can of course front-run manually, depending on the degree of automation in the systems one is front-running, but front-runners will generally want to automate. And to scale the scheme for a realtime system of FTX's volume, Alameda would certainly want to automate it.
I wasn't following the case closely enough, but did the prosecution have access to Alameda source code, or was it only FTX? As long as Alameda had access to FTX order records, any front-running code would likely have resided in Alameda repositories.
I imagine SBF's charges are more serious than a front-running charge. The prosecution also may not have had sufficient evidence of front-running to get the charges to stick.
But any exchange in such close company with a hedge fund should always be suspected of front-running. There's an inherent conflict of interest between those two entity types. And I would be surprised if Alameda wasn't front-running FTX customers, given both firm's obvious ethical shortcomings.
A sudden materialization is what's depicted by the data.
> It's been steadily getting worse.
I don't believe this is accurate. Failing grades are what the observation entails, and the data clearly depict an abrupt change; not a gradual one.
In the section titled "Failing grades in 3 CS classes skyrocket in spring 2026 ", there's a clear jump in failing grades for all cited courses between 2025 and 2026. Failing grades for every course jump by multiples of the previous year.