Your example of Braveheart, for instance, involves two views of the past through the lens of the _present_. So even in that context, both of those views are tinted by the experience and environment of the observer.
Your example of Braveheart, for instance, involves two views of the past through the lens of the _present_. So even in that context, both of those views are tinted by the experience and environment of the observer.
Hopefully @dang adds something to the guidelines to discourage it.
AI has it's demons, for sure, but there is an awful lot of jumping at ghosts these days.
Over the last decade (last 3+ decades realistically, I'm around 35, so that's all my personal anecdotal data goes back to), these "leaders" have all thrown away the facade of "mentorship", "leadership" and all those heavy words.
It's replaced with one phrase, "Profit at any cost". So that means, if you got yours, you're good. If you didn't, see ya! All this is obviously reflected geopolitically (macro-level), so why are we so surprised when it's affecting us at the micro-level?
This is a quote from a really good TV series (called Smiley's people), delivered by George Smiley (Alec Guinness):
`In my time, Peter Guillam, I've seen Whitehall skirts go up and come down again. I've listened to all the excellent argument for doing nothing, and reaped the consequent frightful harvest. I've watched people hop up and down and call it progress. I've seen good men go to the wall and the idiots get promoted with a dazzling regularity. All I'm left with is me and thirty-odd years of cold war without the option.`
So, it's not been out of the norm in our times to watch our own backs. No one is watching ours, the workers, the talent. Moscow rules gentlemen.
but the problem does state that you should be able to do it in your head. who exactly should be able to formulate and reduce simultaneous equations in xy then apply the quadratic formula (with some spicy +/- to keep track of) to get an answer with an irrational number, all in their head? usually, when a problem like this is given there is a shortcut that leads to a simple, not only rational but integer, answer.
the statement "you can do it in your head" generally does not entail this much complexity, as the person who said "you can do it in your head" comes out and says after previously spending a fair amount of time working on it.
words matter, people, that's why I didn't throw in the adjective integral even though I could have.
Of course if you're willing to burn bridges with your employer, there's nothing stopping you from quitting immediately. Have at it.
My second instinct was a brief moment of panic where I worried that it might NOT be satire, and a whole world of horror flashed before my eyes.
It's okay, though. I'm better now. We're not in that other world yet.
But, for a nanosecond or two, I found myself deeply resonating with the dysphoria that I imagine plagued Winston Smith. I think I may just need to sit with that for a while.
No thanks. How would you find violators, with AI detectors? Might as well go back to throwing people into lakes to see if they float.