Probabilistic: 1.968 s - 76% chance it lands on a 1.

Generation: 3.083 s - Equal split.

I don't know how well this actually translates to AI, though. We all understand that AI art has a pretty low quality, but sometimes low quality is enough. If I want an image for my D&D character that only I and my DM will likely ever see, I am fine with a 7 cent AI-generated image, but I'm not willing to pay 150$ for an artist to do it - not that I don't value their time, I just don't value the image that much. Before AI this was the same, I'd just have used an image from Pinterest and thought "Well, this isn't exactly a good match, but I can't find anything better".

But I assume real illustrators do things like illustrations for children's books? I'd like to believe that those are still done by actual people, not AI.

I live in the Netherlands, and I get several spoofed crypto-scam calls every day. I have also stopped picking up the phone for numbers I don't recognize. My own telephone number has been used to call others for a while, so I would get tons of "sorry I was busy, what did you call about?" return calls from random people when clearly I had not called them at all.

As far as I know, the only reason spoofing is even possible, is so that call centers in other countries can pretend to be calling from a local number, which.. why is that even a feature?

This feels very much like an example of "this should be run by the government" rather than letting this be run by companies.

The interview was literally nothing but back-to-back brainteasers and leetcode-challenges for 3 hours straight.

I didn't get the job even though I only failed to solve one problem, and looking back I think that the problem was in fact unsolvable and they wanted me to come to that conclusion rather than admit that I couldn't solve it in my head.

But I'll admit that code review is actually not the best comparison, as my PRs don't get reviews from thousands of people from the public - only from other engineers. So I suppose that's actually an argument in favor of Hart.

> True, some readers become indignant at their own inability to follow prose of any complexity or to recognize words any more obscure than those they are accustomed to using when talking to their dogs.

I do think that there is value in using precise, obscure words to convey precise, obscure knowledge (as with Hart's pogonotrophy example).

However, if all critique is dismissed as the indignation of swine, then how will anyone holding that position ever be able to tell whether they are just a bad writer?

Hart suggests that they should critique themselves, or rely on the critiques of those who write in the same way as they do. I am a programmer though, not an author. But I know that only accepting reviews from those I consider accomplished enough, and ignoring reviews by others as if they were indignant at their own inability to comprehend my code, is a very dangerous path to walk.

Definitely not written for someone with my starting knowledge, haha.

He knew we were computer nerds so didn't really care about teaching us (we knew more than him anyway). And we didn't mind that he just sat there drinking coffee and reading a book, as it meant we could just play videogames for an hour. Good times.

I have no doubt that AI was used for this, but I am shocked that this is even a thing. Before AI, any rich or connected student (which I assume is essentially all ivy league students) could just get someone to take the test for them?

As someone who would rather send a slack message to a coworker rather than actually walking over and talk to them, the idea of having to talk with my laptop is not appealing at all, haha.