The NYT is in no way far left. It's a fairly centrist, vaguely middle-right publication. They have the occasional leftist essay, but far more often their op-eds are very strangely right-wing.
I say strangely, because it's not very typical, afaict, but just occasionally someone feels the need to throw something really bizarre out there. Which is why there's several variations on things like the "NYT pitchbot" out there, making fun of how bizarre those are.
The 1619 Project is so insanely partisan and divorced from reality, that even the Trotskyist publication World Socialist Web Site has correctly denounced it as nonsense, and published some very high-quality rebuttals.
>The NYT is in no way far left. It's a fairly centrist, vaguely middle-right publication. They have the occasional leftist essay, but far more often their op-eds are very strangely right-wing.
I don't know what this site is or why it should be treated as authoritative, but putting Jacobin and NYT Opinion on the same plane seems pretty divorced from reality.
I wouldn't say so. They're both definitely center-left, though they may not be to the same extremes. Here's the creds on AllSides: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllSides
It might make tradeoffs that make it unacceptable in other situations, particularly ones that are focused on being resource constrained in some way.
For example it could have low RAM usage, but become exponentially slower with message size, so it's fine for encrypting short messages only.
Or it could have a constant overhead somewhere that's fine for an IoT device that sends a report once a day, but not if you wanted to make thousands of connections per second.
I'm not familiar with the original. So I really enjoyed this a lot. Just a very quirky and cartoonish style of humor. Did not take itself too seriously either; which is always a good thing.
You need to do a lot of train travel to amortize those costs. If you just need to take the train from Geneva airport to Lausanne and then maybe the metro a couple of times, it won't be worth it.
I don't know that it's particularly unethical to disrupt /pol/. I'd rather worry that it won't disturb them at all and just push them further into radicalisation.
I also wondered why the author set it up to echo the existing comments, instead of for example building a bot that asks people for evidence supporting their claims, or tells people they appreciate them, or whatever else one could possibly think of for a bot to do.
I think you're right about it pushing them further over the edge. The other thing is, what's stopping them from creating more and more image boards/chans in the longer term? Will this end up being a whackamole game between the botters and 4chan posters?
It also begs the question. What if they were botting the communities you personally enjoy and love? Is it ethical for them to do it?
You could argue that bots are expected by the hosters and people there, and they are happy to be experimented with (ok, not sure what's the evidence for that argument), that's one thing, but another is releasing the model freely and not being bothered by ethical concerns.
Legibility. It is a significant improvement, and it still bothers me that English underuses it, even after years of it being my primary reading language.
No, the proper response to that is still not a curve, it's to identify which block of questions wasn't appropriate and removing those from scoring or turning them into "bonus points" and similar measures.
That way you don't incur any of the (pretty severe) drawbacks of a curve but don't punish students for questions that were badly phrased or weren't properly taught.
Simply removing the offending questions after the fact doesn't solve everything. Students may have fruitlessly wasted a ton of time on those questions, causing their grade in other parts of the test to suffer.
So eventually you can use the Duplo blocks as large building blocks under more intricate Lego designs.