• 0 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle





  • Cooking is an inherently manual task, and as such any meaningful improvements to cooking tools are enhancements to the manual capabilities of the tools. These are improvements to things like speed/precision/durability of mixing, heating, weighing, etc. Often times the most meaningful improvements are improvements in mechanisms in cooking machines or the materials they are made of, but there are definitely examples of electronics or software contributing in this way. Good examples would be fuzzy logic applied to electric kettles to make the act of heating to a specific temperature more precise by controlling the heating element so the water is brought to temperature without overshoot, or PID controllers in espresso machines controlling pumps to follow a specific pressure curve instead of requiring complex mechanical systems to accomplish the same thing. The problem with many of these internet-connected or heavily software-dependent appliances is that their added features do not improve the manual capabilities of the appliance in any way, sure the machine will tell you how much weight of flour you need for your cake, but your cake won’t be better than one produced by a “dumb” machine because the scale isn’t any more precise than any other scale that would be used for that purpose.

    The other issue with these devices is a fallacy that’s really common in kitchen equipment, which is the idea that more functions = better. Fundamentally, a device designed to do both task A and task B will be worse than an equivalently priced combination of one device for task A and one device for task B, because there is a cost associated with engineering the device to accomplish both tasks. This effect is especially noticable on all-in-one devices that mix, weigh, and heat because there’s a lot more complexity, and thus a lot more cost spent on integrating the components together







  • I mean, it’s pretty scummy but “working with” could refer to just being in communications with those charities about what a potential donation would be used for. Given what Jirard has said, I assume he was completely negligent about checking in on any of the foundation’s activities, and was probably just handed a paper with the names of “partners” on it for the stream. That said, I feel like the quotes about being a “major” or “main” partner with some specific organizations could get them into trouble, even if it’s legal for them to hold the money that long and they pass IRS audits


  • I would love to see an actual lawyer’s take on this. Jirard’s response is basically “we mislead everyone and were shitty for not donating before now, but it was perfectly legal for us to hold the money until now, and it was also legal for us to use donations for operating expenses of the foundation/events”. While Karl presents a lot of evidence of misleading statements by Jirard, his usage of the encyclopedia brittanica to define charity fraud instead of any actual legal definition, and presentation of evidence as more damning than it actually is (and in a very hostile manner) leads me to view both sides in a negative light. At this point, I have no idea whether either side has any legal grounds for the accusations made toward the other, and I don’t see that changing unless someone with actual legal knowledge weighs in







  • I think the major difference that determines copywrightability is the amount of control the artist has on the outcome. If a photographer doesn’t like the composition of a photo, there’s a variety of things they can do to directly impact the photo (camera positioning/settings, moving the subjects, changing lighting, etc.), before it’s even captured by the camera. If someone is generating a picture with AI and they don’t like the composition of the image, there’s nothing they can do directly impact what the output will be.

    If you want a picture of an apple, where the apple is placed precisely at a certain spot in frame, a photographer can easily accomplish this, but someone using AI will have to generate the image over and over, hoping that the algorithm decides to eventually place the apple exactly in the desired spot


  • It’s so blatant how gen ed classes are used to get every last cent out of students. Like, I understand the reasoning that some students lack general skills they’ll need for their jobs (e.g. engineering students having terrible English skills, which will be needed for presentations/reports), but that’s not an excuse to require every student to take those classes no matter what. If they really only cared that students were proficient in those subjects, there would be the option to test out, but that’s never a possibility. Most big universities near me also refuse to give credit for AP/IB classes, and don’t even allow credits to transfer from other colleges for everything but the most base-level courses.

    I can think of about one class per semester (so almost a quarter of my classes) that was pure filler, where I only showed up for tests/presentations, and that I could have tested out of with maybe a week of effort, but that wasn’t allowed. In one case, I managed to skip the first semester of a subject and take the second course because they forgot to list the first one as a prerequisite. The scheduling counselor found out after I had already passed the more advanced course and was pissed. They made me take a replacement course even though I was 30 credits over the graduation requirement and had clearly already filled the knowledge requirement for that subject. You get one guess as to why that was 🤔