It’s so hard to understand that the foreign staff are now afraid for their safety and their lives?

After the killing of Pretti (execution is probably the more correct word), I guess even some US staff can not be so sure about what would happen to them.

__“But are there not many fascists in your country?"

"There are many who do not know – but will find it out when the time comes.”__

My general take on any AI/ML in medicine is that without a proper clinical validation, they are not worth to try. Also, AI Snake Oil is worth reading.

Clinical validation, proper calibration, ethnic and community and population variants, questioning technique and more ...

Exactly. There's a lot of potential, but it needs to be done right, otherwise it is worse than useless.

What a wonderful teacher! I wish all teachers were like him.

Regarding the collaboration before the exam, it's really strange. In our generation, asking or exchanging questions was perfectly normal. I got an almost perfect score in physics thanks to that. I guess the elegant solution was still in me, but I might not have been able to come up with it in such a stressful situation. 'Almost' because the professor deducted one point from my score for being absent too often :)

However, oral exams in Europe are quite different from those at US universities. In an oral exam, the professor can interact with the student to see if they truly understand the subject, regardless of the written text. Allowing a chatbot during a written exam today would be defying the very purpose of the exam.

Pyret, a teaching language for CS, in the vein of Racket, does require testing by writing functions.

https://pyret.org/docs/latest/testing.html

My experience is exactly the opposite. With AI, it's better to start small and simplify as much as possible. Once you have working code, refactor and abstract it as you deem fit, documenting along the way. Not the other way around. In a world abound of imitations and perfect illusions, code is the crucial reality to which you need to anchor yourself, not documents.

But that’s just me, and I'm not trying to convince anyone.

in my experience you do both. small ai spike demos to prove a specific feature or logic, then top-down assemble them into a superstructure. The difference is that I do the spikes on pure vibe, while reserving my design planning for the big system.

or at least they can cache the results for a while and update so they can compare the answers over time and not waste the planet's energy due to their dumb design.

Reading the comments here about lawyering to make the prediction seems accurate, I have to say for me the value of prediction is not firstly about its binary accuracy, but more about the insights I get from the prediction and adjustment process. As our language is always limited, putting everything in a binary yes/no will almost always result in some dissatisfaction. We learn never much from binary values but from the gray values and how we must change our judgements to adapt. Perhaps that’s why punishment can cause a reaction but not deep learning and good educators always strive for insights and self-correction.

Useful predictions should also not in black or white but should be presented with an uncertainty, percentage of confidence if one can. It helps one to adjust ones prediction and confidence when new facts come along and I argue every serious predictors should do that.

To protect innocent people for examples, or to not reveal some secrets.

Some of these don't feel like they fall into those. For example in [1], on page 41, I can't imagine how that redaction fits either.

1: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1HFqpFLOJgYLiAgjT...

What is in this particular case that requires outdated tools? If they are code, certainly you can write them on VS Code or whatever you likes, and only need to compile and load on the original tools, can’t you?

It’s more the library and language side. Typically you are years behind and once a version has proven to be working, the reluctance to upgrade is high. It’s getting really interesting with the rise of package managers and small packages. Validating all of them is a ton of effort. It was easier with larger frameworks

Sometimes it's because you need to support ancient esoteric hardware that's not supported by any other tools, or because you've built so much of your own tooling around a particular tool that it resembles application platform in it's own right.

Other times it's just because there are lots of other teams involved in validation, architecture, requirements and document management and for everyone except the developers, changing anything about your process is extra work for no benefit.

At one time I worked on a project with two compiler suites, two build systems, two source control systems and two CI systems all operating in parallel. In each case there was "officially approved safe system" and the "system we can actually get something done with".

We eventually got rid of the duplicate source control, but only because the central IT who hosted it declared it EOL and thus the non-development were forced, kicking and screaming to accept the the system the developers had been using unofficially for years.

That’s what we often do. Develop with one set of non validated tools but in the end put everything into the validated system for submission.

You need tracability from requirements down to lines of code. It's a very painstaking process.

Painstaking and often done with terrible tools and badly written requirements.

Very interesting. But I wonder how much Google (and other) Maps can actually shape the scene. For tourist hotspots with a lot of visitors, it IS clearly the driving force. But for locals, I don’t think it has an overwhelming effect. Locals know their restaurants and they visit them based on their own rating. They could explore total strange and new ones, but then they will form their own rating and memory immediately and will not get fooled/guided by algorithm (the next time)

Yeah, can’t comment about London, as I’ve only been a tourist there, but assuming it works like in Tokyo. In a big city, with basically unlimited amount of dining options, a lot of people will try different places. In the past year, I don’t think I’ve repeated a single dinner spot more than 3 time, and I basically eat out every day. This is always a discovery problem, and word of mouth/google maps/tabelog/etc. is a major sales driver here.

Now, if I think about the time I lived in Vancouver, it was the opposite. You don’t have that many options, after a while you basically make a list of your favourites and rotate.

Long-time Tokyo/Yokohama resident here. I’m basically the same: Especially if I’m by myself and near a train station or retail area, I just walk around to see what’s available and choose someplace to eat. Only if I am planning a meal with others do I look for options online, and then, in addition to Google and Apple maps, I also use sites such as tabelog.com and restaurant.ikyu.com.

I haven’t been outside Japan for nearly a decade so I can’t compare it with other countries, but my impression is that Japan has more small restaurants than some other places. It’s not unusual to go into a ramen, curry, gyoza, soba, or other eating place with fewer than a dozen seats and staffed by just one or two people.

The existence of such small places increases the eating-out options. I don’t know why such small food businesses are viable here but not elsewhere; perhaps regulatory frameworks (accessibility, fire, health, tax, labor, etc.) play a role.

Totally. We’re definitely lucky over here. From my talks with people in restaurant industry in NA, it’s just extremely expensive to start a business, on top of the regulatory restrictions that you’ve mentioned. And obviously the holy grail of money making - liquor. I can get beer in almost every random ramen shop near me. It takes months/years of approval to open a place with a liquor license in Vancouver, Canada. Margins on alcohol are huge, that gives breathing room to little margins places make from food.

Unless, as a local looking for new spots to try, your first step is going to Google Map and searching "restaurants". I'm certainly guilty of this sometimes.

I did exactly this < 10 minutes ago. For my local area.

I disagree, i’m always using Google to find new restaurants and places to go to in my own (fairly large) city.

The writer is in London where even locals often eat outside their immediate neighborhood.

Depends if you live in a big city with a lot of restaurant turnover or not.

This is actually a big frustration for me how I can search food and get totally different results over the same area in the frame. I seem to remember in the old days of google maps you'd see, you know, everything in the area. Like pins on pins on overlapping pins. And you'd click through them or zoom in as appropriate. You found everything. It all worked.

Then someone had the brilliant idea that this was all too busy, and you should have pins omitted until you have sometimes zoomed so far in you are filling your map viewer frame with the doorstep of that business...

I wouldn't be surprised to learn businesses get charged to appear first. Seems like it tends to be things like fast food or national chains over new locally owned restaurants that pop up more often on google maps.

I'm not sure the overlapping pins idea would work for e.g. a 5 floor building with no multilevel maps and 6 businesses to a floor. Which is a common thing in some of the places Google maps.

Works for me. If I search "restaurants", and I see a building full of pins. I can now go to that building and look at all the restaurants.

You don't want to show every business as a default view, of course.