It’s weirdly difficult to remap the “office” key so that pressing it won’t open an ad for ms office 365 and pressing office+L won’t open linkedin.com, and a few more equally valuable core OS features.

In the end I just had to grab a small bit of C code from GitHub, compile it, move the exe to the startup folder, have Windows Defender yell at me for having obviously installed a particularly nasty brand of trojan, and make Windows Defender put the executive I had just compiled back.

But really, I deserve this for using a Microsoft natural keyboard in the first place.

He literally just fixed it, and he learned nothing from this, Dunning-Kruger as strong as always.

Instead of simply blurring them, it’d be technically possible to feed their images through a stable diffusion prompt, like “humanoid lizards” or “frantic lemmings”…
Also, I understand that a large language model could be made to rewrite articles about them with a matching prompt.

That would be very silly, of course.

Yes, it really was renamed after the Zuckerbergs, as buildings sometimes are at the request of a large donator seeking posterity.

See Wikipedia:

In November 2008, San Francisco voters approved an $887.4 million general obligation bond for the General Hospital rebuild, work began in 2009, and was expected to be finished in 2015.

In 2015, Facebook founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, and his wife Priscilla Chan gave $75 million to help fund equipment and technology for the new hospital.

More appropriate tools to detect AI generated text you mean?

It’s not a thing. I don’t think it will ever be a thing. Certainly not reliably, and never as a 100% certainty tool.

The punishment for a teacher deciding you cheated on a test or an assignment? I don’t know, but I imagine it sucks. Best case, you’d probably be at risk of failing the class and potentially the grade/semester. Worst case you might get expelled for being a filthy cheater. Because an unreliable tool said so and an unreliable teacher chose to believe it.

If you’re asking what’s the answer teachers should know to defend against AI generated content, I’m afraid I don’t have one. It’s akin to giving students math homework assignments but demanding that they don’t use calculators. That could have been reasonable before calculators were a thing, but not anymore and so teachers don’t expect that to make sense and don’t put those rules on students.

There are stories after stories of students getting shafted by gullible teachers who took one of those AI detectors at face value and decided their students were cheating based solely on their output.

And somehow those teachers are not getting the message that they’re relying on snake oil to harm their students. They certainly won’t see this post, and there just isn’t enough mainstream pushback explaining that AI detectors are entirely inappropriate tools to decide whether to punish a student.

No True Christian would ever activate a fully automated sentry killbot that doesn’t use at least one of its compute cores to pray to the Almighty on a loop.

That sounds like an improbable attempt to leverage the notion that minors can’t enter into a legally binding contract into a loophole to get anything for free by simply having your kid order it.

One of my guilty pleasures is to rewrite trivial functions to be statements free.

Since I’d be too self-conscious to put those in a PR, I keep those mostly to myself.

For example, here’s an XPath wrapper:

const $$$ = (q,d=document,x=d.evaluate(q,d),a=[],n=x.iterateNext()) => n ? (a.push(n), $$$(q,d,x,a)) : a;

Which you can use as $$$("//*[contains(@class, 'post-')]//*[text()[contains(.,'fedilink')]]/../../..") to get an array of matching nodes.

If I was paid to write this, it’d probably look like this instead:

function queryAllXPath(query, doc = document) {
    const array = [];
    const result = doc.evaluate(query, doc);
    let node= result.iterateNext();
    while (node) {
        array.push(node);
        n = result.iterateNext();
    }
    return array;
}

Seriously boring stuff.

Anyway, since var/let/const are statements, I have no choice but to use optional parameters instead, and since loops are statements as well, recursion saves the day.

Would my quality of life improve if the lambda body could be written as => if n then a.push(n), $$$(q,d,x,a) else a ? Obviously, yes.