You can go back to requiring home assignments be written by hand. It won't completely fix the AI issue, because you can still ask ChatGPT and then rewrite it, but it helps because it's very tedious and time consuming, so the benefit is much lower.
If that is not enough, we may have to stop grading take-home papers. Which is a good idea anyway.
First you would need to define a measure of inferiority.
I'm pretty sure we have measured some very spicific things, and found that different races on average have some genetic advantages and disadvantages. Is saying that Asians are disadvantaged in milk drinking competitions making society worse? Also, because humans are diverse, differences between individuals within any racial group can be far greater than differences between races.
And if you compare men and women, the differences are much much bigger, and the comparisons much more frequent - you can barely turn on the TV or open up any social media without seeing them.
It's absolutely straightforward to uphold Democratic principles over Fascistic enterprises. People who get this wrong are simply wrong, and it's likely emotional and psychological forces that got them there, not rational, historiographic, or empirical ones.
The current headwinds are a result of ill-equiped individuals being manipulated by other ill-equiped individuals.
> It's absolutely straightforward to uphold Democratic principles over Fascistic enterprises.
That may be, but it also seems perfectly logical to claim democracy is broken because a voice of an educated person carries same weight than that of a high school dropout. All you need to do is extend this logic a bit. I think it is because of our emotions, empathy or maybe something else that we see that this "flaw" in democracy isn't really a flaw.
> ill-equiped individuals being manipulated by other ill-equiped individuals
Except fascism wasn't only a manipulation. Had fascism succeeded it would've made the participating states extremely rich, powerful and influential throughout the next (maybe) hundreds of years.
I appreciate your contribution to the conversation, but have to disagree : "Had fascism succeeded" is kinda of an impossibility. it's bad at doing things and internally eats itself as soon as it gets power. Fascism is not just <Alternative Government Style> as if it was a choice of haircut, it's cancer
> "Had fascism succeeded" is kinda of an impossibility.
Depends. If you assume succeeded indefinitely then this is a trap because such a thing is impossible (can only be deemed indefinitely successful at its end at which point it cant). Fascism could've been the new feudal era with the masters and slaves clearly defined but yes, I don't think it could've lasted forever if that's what you're saying.
As a common meeting ground between Hobbes and Rousseau (and probably Locke, which I confess I have not read), anyone can hold and fire a gun. Considering the original context in whence Greek democracy flourished, I'd say that's a fair extrapolation to modern times.
> Considering the original context in whence Greek democracy flourished, I'd say that's a fair extrapolation to modern times.
I don't think so. Even "democracy" in the lens of 18th is century America is rife with various prejudice that shouldn't existing in a pure democracy. I wouldn't extrapolate anything accurately from millenia ago if it degregates in a matter of a few centuries.
It's very easy to protest "equal vote for each person" when the ruling body gets to define "person" (or more accurately, "citizen") in their own emotion way
Since then a single farmer feeds thousands of people. We are producing more and with much less effort than we did before we have started farming and had to post the guards.
Yet the guards remain and insist that they are still needed.
Well, I still believe it's going to be good eventually. Like KSP1, for example, or No Man's Sky. There certainly have both the resources and a guaranteed player base to make that happen.
That said, I cannot be sure of that, so I will not buy it until it is actually good.
Those are two very different examples, though. NMS was improved heavily but in many ways never approached the features and qualities that people were expecting. KSP2 feels more like NMS than KSP1 in that regard - people have expectations. They've been sold a specific vision which doesn't look like the game. Further, unless it's great... why not just keep playing KSP1 with extensive modding?
> NMS was improved heavily but in many ways never approached the features and qualities that people were expecting.
Asking who? From what I've seen, the typical sentiment is that they've gone far past the expectations they set.
For KSP2 I think the main expectations were eventual new content (starting with a good chunk less than KSP1 and adding more later) and better performance. And they sure haven't delivered performance.
> Asking who? From what I've seen, the typical sentiment is that they've gone far past the expectations they set.
I enjoy the game a lot more now, but the original E3 "gameplay" trailer still feels like it overpromises. Comparing the current state to that trailer there are quite a few things that have fallen short:
I've never encountered a planet which was as lush as the one shown initially. You don't find animals packed that closely together. I don't think semi-aquatic animals like the sauropod-looking things in the trailer are supported in the game either. You don't see animals running around in packs like they showed either. The closest thing you see is about five identical animals spawned into the same small area.
The video also shows you being able to fly swiftly above the surface of a planet. I may be misremembering, but I don't think I've ever been able to fly quite that quickly, but the biggest difference is that the game suffers from very noticeable object pop-in (it can even be noticed when moving at low speed).
I think you can fly with wingmen now, but I've not tried it.
This might not sound like much, but the existing game just looks far less interesting than the original trailer even if many rough boxes have been checked since then. Also, I'm not even looking at any other pre-release announcements or videos for reference.
Well I really hope neither of us spends too much time worrying about this today but I will respond with some points in addition to the other reply you got.
> Asking who? From what I've seen, the typical sentiment is that they've gone far past the expectations they set.
I'll note that anybody still playing the game probably likes it, and anybody who doesn't like it probably stopped playing years ago (except to perhaps check out new updates and continue to feel disappointed).
Some specific things:
- planets feel lifeless and very samey: there's nothing to really explore because the depth of geology, biology, ecology is not there. I suspect that's why they added so much base building, which was never a significant part of the early hype/marketing.
- even features they implemented feel incomplete and shallow, such as player customization and base building, compared to many other games which do those things better.
- the game was described as allowing the player to navigate an actual star system, and instead it's just a skybox densely littered with pirates and asteroids. If I want that, X4 is a hundred times better. For exploring stellar systems, Elite Dangerous or just SpaceEngine show that it's possible to do well.
As always, it's a tradeoff. Sometimes it's a problem, sometimes the same thing is a critical feature.
Which is why it's so important that you have multiple choices. If you need the latest packages, use Arch. If you need stability over multiple years, use Debian.
> All green bets like diesel, biomass, natural gas
That's a huge clue right there. Germany bet on the most conservative solutions (keeping their diesel cars and house heating systems) and guess what, they don't work. Burning food for energy was never going to be good idea, and biodiesel was never going be clean enough for cars, but they went for it anyway because they didn't dare touch the auto companies.
It isn't so much about competitiveness or pettiness, but rather about individualism. Americans for some reason always like to think that everything was invented by a single super-genious individual working alone in a cave with a box of scraps. That's how it's always presented in the media - superheroes (alone or in a very small group), lone scientists, billionaires who single-handedly created their wealth from scratch, etc.
In Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden locks himself for year in a small laboratory, comes up alone with a new formula for super strong steel and, because it is the best steel, Rearden becomes a very successful entrepreneur.
This makes absolutely no sense but for some reasons I don’t explain, this is now seen as how science and business should work in the eyes of people calling themselves "realists".
Why does that make no sense? Sounds a lot like how Google and Facebook were both born along with many other businesses. Rearden is never said to run the whole business himself after all, just do the experiments to develop the new tech.
If that is not enough, we may have to stop grading take-home papers. Which is a good idea anyway.