>You cannot do proof without intuition hence, if you emphasize proof, intuition will take care of itself.

This isn't always the case. Our algebra (or analysis) course focused a lot on proofs for the exam. The result was that a lot of people learned the proofs by heart.

I think intuition is hard to test in a way that feels 'fair'.

You can do it - I doubt you could have got a first when I was at Oxford just by learning and understanding the material, but you should probably have been able to get an upper second. The final part of every question virtually always involved insight, but you'd obviously then have to prove what that insight helped you understand.

If you give people questions like those, there is the risk of complaints about the university not having been taught the material for the exams I guess, or you might find that nobody can answer those harder intuition parts. Certainly most students at Oxford couldn't answer that many of them - you needed to answer about three 'final' parts out of about ten questions say in each three hour exam to get a first and perhaps about 20 percent of students got firsts?

An aside, but tests should be that difficult. Otherwise you aren’t getting any signal at the high end. Even in the face of grade inflation that signal can be translated into grad school recommendations (in the uk case, getting all 10 might even garner a “really not bad.”)

Same here, but I didn't memorize the proofs, I tried to internalize their logic, so I could reconstruct them on demand by just thinking systematically. It did work for me pretty well on my real analysis final exam IIRC (27 years later).

Analogous to the Archimedean Property - there is no approach to teaching mathematics so intrinsically good that it cannot be done poorly enough to yield arbitrarily bad results.

>Then that family member does not worry like you do worry.

Until they lose access to that account and then it becomes my problem to solve.

This is a different issue. Not everyone has a data engineer - know it all as a family member.

And you need to accept it works for millions.

Working for millions doesn't imply a good hit rate. Google could release a feature that worked 1% of the time and manage that, as well as barely noticing if it wipes out 10% of their users. My actual experience is that almost all the people I know who are using passkeys are using them by mistake and it's only not a big problem because they aren't currently being used up to their promise of preventing the vulnerable authentication methods.

My actual experience is people with passkey are fine. No more account take over. Mote over they like frictionless login.

Yes there are few that used bitwarden and lost everything as their sync using syncthing failed.

Indeed. Disney's cultural impact has been far greater.

I think they can match a human in critical thinking, but they can't match a human in coherence and meta-thinking. You can prompt an LLM to critically think of any idea you want and it's often able to do so, but it's rarely going to do that by itself.

If things go bad then the problem they cause is so huge that nobody is capable of taking responsibility for it. The following is an illustration of what I mean:

Eg imagine if one of these surveillance companies gets hacked. Personal data and the habits of a hundred million people get compromised.

The penalties for this should be enough to make everyone affected whole.

If your neighbor had a secret camera in your home - what would it take to make you whole? I imagine most people would be okay with like $50k (or some other large sum like that).

Are these surveillance companies ready to pay $50k per person? Hell no. 100M * 50k = $5 trillion.

Nobody can afford to pay that much. They either end up going bankrupt or are absolved of this responsibility. Either way, the people affected will not be made whole.

The way AI and copyright is handled paved the way for this. If you aren't considered the author because you used AI to some extent in making the work, then why would you assume the liabilities?

I've been saying since the start that AI is a tool that a human is using and should be treated as such. They should carry the responsibilities and the benefits. That way our stance would be consistent.

> If you aren't considered the author because you used AI to some extent in making the work, then why would you assume the liabilities?

Maybe some analogy could be with children - as a parent, you are responsible for their misbehavior, but their achievements are their, not your?

Well, when they are a child their material gains are treated as yours, no? (Parents of child actors control the money etc.) And once they aren't anymore you aren't responsible for their misbehavior either (because they've become an adult).

RuneScape is still one of the most popular MMOs out there. Last year it peaked at over 240k people online (concurrent users). It's nowhere near as popular as Roblox, Fortnite, and Minecraft but it's still doing very well.

I think what happened to the MMO genre is mobile games. They siphoned away the casual playerbase, so the old dynamics don't work as well anymore.

>It's tempting to think there's something like "the MMO" that's yet to be discovered, just like the arena shooter was.

It wouldn't surprise me if this was seasonal games like Diablo and Path of Exile. I've thought that seasons like in those games are the future of games like MMOs since they provide a natural hype cycle and jumping on point for the game.

But something entirely new would likely be AI related. Perhaps AI tools in the (far) future will allow so much decent content to be made that games can constantly offer new experiences. Like imagine a near limitless world to explore. That could be interesting.

worth mentioning there's some indication the 240k peak was massively inflated by bot accounts. but by all means there are many fewer bot accounts this year, and it's still ~150k concurrents frequently. so it's still doing very well, but the numbers are a little different.

>- Social media and doomscrolling without sufficient parental controls: Several OECD countries are already addressing this by introducing or considering restrictions on teenagers’ access to social media.

Surely this time banning things will improve test scores!

Even before you get to the scores in the report, it shows what percentage of students come from schools that have banned phones. There doesn't seem to be any obvious correlation where banning phones from school gives better results. Eg Estonia averaged 520 points with 26% of students from schools that ban phones. 88.9% of students were in NZ schools where cellphones are banned, but NZ averaged 511 points.

I think before we start banning more "random" things we should consider whether these bans actually produce results. Let the countries that are making these changes run their banning experiment and the rest of us should wait and see whether their scores meaningfully improve afterwards.

Thanks Aerroon for sharing ! Banning social media is indeed an experiment and we don't know yet how efficient it will be.

Score results aren’t alone sufficient proof about whether a ban on phones in school is successful or not.

Phones also enable classroom distractions, waste teachers time, and enable antisocial behaviours kids like the engage such as bullying.

>Score results aren’t alone sufficient proof about whether a ban on phones in school is successful or not.

If the scores aren't increasing as a result of it, then why are we doing it? We're clearly not asking for legitimate input from the people who are actually impacted by these policies (students).

Also, everything "enables" bullying. Bullying is not a problem that's caused by things. It won't go away when you take the things away.

> then why are we doing it?

Re-read my initial comment.

> It won't go away when you take the things away.

You don't know what safeguarding and harm minimisation means, do you?

>You don't know what safeguarding and harm minimisation means, do you?

They're weasel words people use when their proposal doesn't actually work.

"It's totally making things better, you just can't see it in any objective stats."

Neither of those can be measured nor are they the reason we have schools in the first place. But they sound nice.

> They're weasel words people use when their proposal doesn't actually work.

No. They have concrete definitions that are just inconvenient for your argument. A+ in mental gymnastics though.

They can have concrete definitions, but they conveniently don't have objective measures.

I don't need to do mental gymnastics, because the purpose of school is learning. If measures can't improve learning outcomes then they shouldn't be forced onto everyone.

>Given the big gap between the east and the west

I thought the reason that China and Singapore were so far ahead of everyone else was that they were urban populations vs everyone else include rural areas.

I assumed that Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang were purely urban, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm very curious about this as well, because BSJZ is almost an entire proficiency level above (almost) everyone else. That's an insane gap.

>I once visited a radio station and they took their shoes off there too for some reason (no, I don't believe it was ESD related).

Isn't it reasonable/normal to take shoes off at work and put on indoor does like sandals or similar ("work shoes")? Obviously it depends on the job, but it seems reasonable to me at a radio station. And if the regular employees are wearing indoor shoes, then it might become normal for outdoor shoes to not be typically worn inside.

I don't have an opinion about whether it's reasonable, but in the U.S. I have never seen it. Maybe in a daycare. And people wear street shoes in many offices in Japan.