At Harvard at least, there is a "dorm crew", comprised mostly of poorer students meeting their term-time work requirements that come with finaid, that is responsible for cleaning the in-suite bathrooms.
I think I recall recently reading that some schools might have finally eliminated the requirement (maybe, Yale?) but I'm not sure. It was definitely the case at Harvard as of ~March 2020. (but probably not for this year for obvious reasons!)
Yale has a `student income contribution`, where students on finanical aid are expected to work in some term-time jobs. However these jobs are virtually all administrative (doing paperwork, making calls, etc.), research or teaching assistant-ships. I have not heard of poorer students doing any cleaning.
From my perspective (mid 20's), 'stanning' is a pretty ubiquitous word/idea. Many people use it pretty casually and those who don't are likely familiar with what it means in general (even without the context of the Eminem song). Those in touch with culture would be even more likely to recognize it.
From my perspective, someone who bought the Marshall Mathers MP when it came and loved the song Stan (I'm mid 30s). I would say "Stanning" isn't ubiquitous at all, in fact, I've never heard of it until today.
Just did a quick check around my office (Fintech company)(mostly 25-35) and no one had heard of it.
I'm well familiar with stanning (fintech, 26). It's ubituitous in certain circles and certain subscultural values, so if you don't hold them and don't participate in it you probably don't know it.
Also, I don't think fintech is anywhere remotely close to "an average consumer" population to judge whether or not tabloid/instagram relationship applies to large swaths of people.
When you have teenagers, your cultural consciousness will be reset to the much, much faster flow of that age. And you will return to the era of non-stop slang and hipness.
Stan-ing is very much a common term for Gen-z. And they have stan accounts. And I sort of get it. :)
This happens gradually, but started in full force at my house around age 15.
I have 3 boys, 13-18. It's an incredible amount of fun.
But smart AI isn't fun to play against. Take Chess- AI is smart to the point of domination against players. In a FPS setting you just have an aimbot. In a RTS game you would have an AI with passable macro and insane micro. I think the only real chance of a smart AI being fun is in a pure strategy game (I believe it's GalCiv 2 with the epic story about a backstabbing, scheming AI).
Smart AI is easier to make than a mediocre, fun AI. Optimality is is a clear goal. Fun AI is less clear and requires a unique blend of technical and design expertise.
Seems like you're conflating Smart AI with an optimal game playing algorithm. An aimbot isn't hard time create, sure, but it's not exactly smart, either. Nor is it fun. I agree it's harder to make mediocre but fun AI, and that's what current shooters do. The point is that there's theoretically a level above that, harder to achieve but not impossible, where the AI behaves like a human would. A reasonable balance of predictability and unpredictability, skill, strategy, but not perfection.
In a real time strategy, it seems we're approaching that level with that StarCraft ai. Need to perhaps restrain the ai's ability to micro by fuzzing it's ability to control quickly and precisely in bursts, and then continue to advance it's strategic ability, but I expect it'll get there eventually.
In the case of shooters. It might involve giving the AI a noisy view of the game world, to force it to approach the problem the way a human does. Humans don't just have an accuracy rate or a timer between an event entering their screen and their ability to shoot at it. A human has to filter through visual noise to notice a target, and decide how to engage. A human has to use an arm and hand and muscle memory to manipulate a mouse to get bullets on target. Those are all imperfect controls, with a certain amount of uncertainty between intent and action. All that is further influenced by how prepared the human was, how much they have to adjust their previous plans, or recenter their attention.
It's a difficult task to identify all the things that actually make a game difficult for a human and make sure the AI faces a close approximation of the same problems. Then it's even more difficult to get an AI to a point where it can compete on a human level, not to mention various human levels.
That doesn't mean it's not possible or not worthwhile.
That's why smart AI must also have smart scaling factors. Maybe some randomness. Maybe some imperfections, like players do. I think we should design the best and smartest possible AI and scale it down for average players. Currently we have dumb AI boosted for advanced players. And boosted very naively - by giving them more hp or make them deal more damage.
