The iPad 2 can be downgraded to iOS 6.1.3 or 8.4.1. Both offer better performance than iOS 9 and have untethered jailbreaks. Once downgraded and jailbroken you can sideload hours and hours worth of games. A lot from that era are IAP-free.
I use an iPhone 5 downgraded to iOS 6 (tethered) as an iPod. I love how I can unplug my headphones from my work Mac, plug directly into the phone (no adapter required!) and it effectively mutes Slack without actually muting it. Syncing with the latest version of iTunes still works, albeit slowly.
I also use an iPad 4 (tethered to iOS 6) as an ebook. iBooks works great and I love the pseudomorphic design.
Skeuomorphic means designing digital interfaces to resemble physical-world objects to make them more intuitive and familiar to users. Like how iBooks was made to look like an actual bookcase.
Oversight. Frameworks tend to make it easy to make an API endpoint by casting your model to JSON or something, but it's easy to forget you need to make specific fields hidden.
The US is hardly the only country where this is the case and locking down your phone is almost entirely pointless (see xkcd #538).
If you're concerned about having it searched, don't bring your primary phone. Go to a phone shop, buy an old phone, put your SIM card in it, and use that instead.
Going 538 on a US citizen would be a massive escalation. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if it ever comes up, I'll roll the dice on not unlocking my phone.
If you're worried about being beaten until you divulge your info, it's not like a burner phone is going to save you. They'll extract the login info for all your online accounts.
What of the people that are born who don't produce gametes?
( For example, no gametes are produced in 85% of individuals with streak gonads )
The whole human sex | gender thing seems superficially clearcut but the real world edge cases are messy AF.
The aspect I personally find confusing is that the exceptions are relatively rare .. human births are straighforward enough for 98% of births, and of the 2% that pose a challenge the really curvy edge cases are rare (but real).
Why then do some people seeming lose their collective minds over real but rare occurrences and attempt to hammer every triangle into either a round or a square hole?
I have a purely empirical observational view of the world at large, forced a priori prescriptiveness at odds with the world seems more than a little flat earthy.
A less succinct way of phrasing it would be something like: which gametes are produced, were produced, or should have been produced.
There are messy edge cases. Not all people have 8 fingers and two thumbs, but we don't say digit count is on a spectrum because some people are born with more or less, or that some people have had digits amputated.
The vast, vast majority of people are not messy edge cases. And some of them find language like "pregnant people" or "people with protates" awkward and vaguely dehumanising as opposed to the more understandable and specific terms: "women" and "men".
Like you, I find those terms awkward, at best. I refuse to use them.
Yet, "what should have been produced" is no better. Everytime I hear it, from you and anyone else, it sounds like numbskulls all too pleased at themselves for what they believe is a clever definition, without realizing it's merely "because I said so".
Maybe I'm missing something, and one day I will hear it differently. Not many such things change for me after years. Maybe I'll win the lottery, too.
Since you mentioned fingers... I used to know a shop teacher who adamantly wouldn't count themselves among the 10-fingered, and would give you a safety lecture if you brought it up. Just like that lecture would ignore your joke about opening soda cans and proceed into a near-diatribe that, 30 years later, is still an effective reminder on machine safety, this exemplifies the crux of the gender terminology problem: you're focusing on the wrong thing.
Why are you so insistent on telling other people about their bodies, to the point of declaring to them what their body "should have produced"?
You appear as the middle-schooler that thought youself clever, and your close group of friends seemed to agree, but most everyone else is trying to ignore you. This only became a problem when that close group of friends started stealing lunch money, saying it "should have" been given to them.
> A less succinct way of phrasing it would be something like: which gametes are produced, were produced, or should have been produced.
So how can we determine what "should" be from a scientific basis if all study of these outliers is policed and censored like this?
This seems to be missing the point that would and should are objective vs whatever YOU and yours decided... Almost universally decided by religious or cultural dogma ... And not biology or science
We've been able to observe that there are two sexes since time immemorial based on secondary sex characteristics. There is a very strong correlation between these characteristics and gametes produced. This isn't what I or anyone else has decided nor is it based on religion or culture.
Why is a strong correlation need to forced into a false binary true or false by the law or government?? Myself and others have already gone over the outliers... Again you are focusing on "should be" vs what objectively and scientifically just IS. which is the very definition of culture vs science.
It's not a forced binary. There are no in-between gametes. There are large gametes (eggs) and small gametes (sperm).
The law and government doesn't get to decide this, as you say, it just is. How the law reacts to the scientific fact of the sex binary is a different matter.
There is plenty of in between on what to classify someone who doesn't produce either gamete. And the only answer you seem to have it's that it's obvious because 'should'. While also thinking it's acceptable to use the law to force this conclusion against scientific research. Much like a religious dogma...
Anyways I'm done with this conversation, the whole point was to tease out how absurd and non objective your argument was and I think I have achieved that well enough for others to read for themselves whether this circular logic makes sense or is just to rationalize bigotry.
The problem here is that you’re hand-waving people’s identity behind what you believe it “should” be - which isn’t actually easy to tell! You can have ovaries, XY chromosomes, eggs, male characteristics, and on and on and on in infinite permutations.
Of course, they (meaning people who identify different than you think they “should”) also hand-wave everything away. The difference is they are… them. Their opinion on their identity is more important.
I didn't feel inclined to upvote any. The system is there to point out factual errors. Differences of opinion can be posted in the comments (Xed?) as usual. "Two tier myth" seems to be opinion to me. There may have been a public note which disappeared - it's an upvote/downvote type system.
The AI policy starts at the bottom of page 5. Students have to mention any use of AI, even generating ideas. They must include an appendix with "the entire exchange, highlighting the most relevant sections" and provide an explanation for how and why everything was used.
It seems overly strict to me, hastily written when ChatGPT became popular perhaps.
Pretty soon most students are going to be say "Hey Siri, help me with my homework it's about X" and get an AI answer - are they all academically dishonest?
Kids need to learn how to think and have their own ideas, then as adults if they want to give in to the mediocrity of offloading their thinking to machines they'll have that chance.
AI is externalized assistance. Used one way, it can be a guide that helps a individual learn. Used differently, it's no different than asking someone else to do your work for you.
The issue here is academic honesty, not necessarily the definition of "AI". Should a student using Grammarly submit all drafts of their work and cite the changes they didn't make? Should students receiving external help in the form of parents and tutors cite that assistance?
I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in an age when ubiquitous search and the internet democratize access to information resources. It's trivial to duplicate documents today, and It's no more of a burden to students to disclose how they are writing.
When I was growing up, teachers knew families who didn't have a home library or had only one car and didn't live near the library were at a disadvantage, so research periods were granted during class. Essays were written and turned in during class periods, and sudden changes to handwriting or style were easy to catch.
Today, the challenges are different, so it seems fair to change the requirements and criteria in response. I've advised friends in education to try assigning AI generated papers with citations as tests and ask students to correct them and expand them from sources.
Asking Siri whether information matches a particular source still isn't possible, and if you're going to have to go through the effort of compiling a bunch of sources for RAG, I think any student equipped to do that would also find it reasonably more efficient to simply do the work directly.
It's all meaningless anyways. What's the difference in me asking ChatGPT something and using the answer, and using some website as reference when the website itself could have used AI without me even knowing.
I do think that could be academic dishonesty depending on what came out of ChatGPT and how it was used. But it depends.
Let's also be perfectly clear that "Can you help me with homework about X" is probably not the question actually being asked. We know that these questions are just being pasted in verbatim. That is absolutely academic dishonesty.
This case is a little different. But let's not pretend that teachers in many subjects areny being taken advantage of and screwed over by these tools and students willing to use them. I'm sure they are all frustrated and willing to jump the gun against the slightest sign of this sort of thing. Tragedy of the commons situation, it's going to ruin academic culture in the US imo if there aren't extremely strict rules laid down and quickly.
>Pretty soon most students are going to be say "Hey Siri, help me with my homework it's about X" and get an AI answer - are they all academically dishonest?
I mean, it doesn't matter in the long run since academia will be as entirely AI driven as education soon enough, and the entire concept of "academic integrity" will be nothing but a quaint atavism from the days when the human in the loop was actually relevant, but yes.
This is such a myopic view. The average smartphone user may not immediately understand why increasingly locked down and user hostile devices are bad, but it does not negate the fact they are.
WordPress 3.7, which introduced automatic updates, received security backports all the way to 3.7.41. From 2013 to 2022. 4.1 and above are all still receiving them.
Doesn't WordPress officially only support the two latest minor version release though ? I can't find an official source at the moment but a quick googling seems to confirm that.
> The only current officially supported version is the last major release of WordPress. Previous major releases before this may or may not get security updates as serious exploits are discovered.
> …
> Security updates will be backported to older releases when possible, but there are no guarantee and no timeframe for older releases. There are no fixed period of support nor Long Term Support (LTS) version such as Ubuntu’s. None of these are safe to use, except the latest series, which is actively maintained.
I use an iPhone 5 downgraded to iOS 6 (tethered) as an iPod. I love how I can unplug my headphones from my work Mac, plug directly into the phone (no adapter required!) and it effectively mutes Slack without actually muting it. Syncing with the latest version of iTunes still works, albeit slowly.
I also use an iPad 4 (tethered to iOS 6) as an ebook. iBooks works great and I love the pseudomorphic design.
See also: https://github.com/LukeZGD/Legacy-iOS-Kit