You’re misunderstanding the post. Yes, the reality of maths is that the integral is an operator. But the post talks about how “dx can be treated as an [operand]”. And this is true, in many (but not all) circumstances.

∫(dy/dx)dx = ∫dy = y

Or the chain rule:

(dz/dy)(dy/dx) = dz/dx

In both of these cases, dx or dy behave like operands, since we can “cancel” them through division. This isn’t rigorous maths, but it’s a frequently-useful shorthand.

The operand is the target of an operator

Correct. Thus, dx is an operand. It’s a thing by which you multiply the rest of the equation (or, in the case of dy/dx, by which you divide the dy).

“operative” instead of, uh, something else

I think they meant “operand”. As in, in the way dy/dx can sometimes be treated as a fraction and dx treated as a value.

Fake and gay.

No way the engineer corrects the mathematician for using j instead of i.

Happy cake day, frend!

Yeah it seems pretty unlikely that any AI chat bots are manipulating code in the complex (whether the output is correct or not is immaterial to the complexity of the changes being made) ways that they are that quickly despite actually being done by humans.

I don’t speak Swedish, so I am relying on machine translation here, which admittedly may be causing issues. However, the machine translated version of that Lawline article looks fairly clear. They are using the a word that most literally translates as “plagiarism”, but it carries a meaning that is very clearly closer to copyright infringement.

Kind of like how French “demander” might literally be translated into English as “to demand”, but its actual meaning is closer to English “ask”. Related, but carrying importantly different connotations.

That’s not me staying confidently that you’re wrong about Sweden having plagiarism laws, but only that that source does not (if the machine translation is to be believed) prove the point you thought it did.

A good rule of thumb to tell if a law is actually about plagiarism per se (and not copyright infringement) is to ask whether it could apply if you were doing it to Beethoven or Shakespeare. Or even to yourself, because “self-plagiarism” is a thing—you need to cite yourself if you’re referencing something you yourself did previously —but “self–copyright infringement” is not.

Another feature of plagiarism is that it is entirely alleviated by clearly citing the source. If you can say “this part of my text came from this source” and avoid the fine, that fine really was plagiarism. If not, it’s probably copyright infringement.

argumentations in the swedish judicial system are not written in the impenetrable formal language of anglophone countries and are actually quite simple to parse, since they are not being used as precedence (since sweden is a civil law country rather than common law).

This is fascinating. Personally I’m not a lawyer, just an amateur with a passing interest in the law. I’ve read a handful of judgments and tend to find them fairly easy to read. Legislation itself can be impenetrable, and references to it can make a judgement difficult to follow (as can references to precedents), but assuming you know the black-letter law, I think most lay people can read a judgement and follow its logic pretty comfortably, even in common law jurisdictions.

But that is still definitely a fascinating hypothesis. It kinda makes me wish I still frequented Reddit, because it reminds me of conversations I’ve seen and even participated in on /r/auslaw about different legal systems (an interesting one: why America’s encoded civil rights in the constitution directly help lead to the activist judicial system they see today, which itself is key to Trump’s rising fascism, compared to another common law country where the constitution only lays out more basic, mundane things like how the number of Senators is calculated). I would love to see what more lawyers familiar with either system think about that point you make. It’s a very intriguing one.

it is here

Are you absolutely certain? I’ve seen people claim that before and be wrong, because they were again confusing copyright infringement with plagiarism. It could be a translation issue where the law against copyright infringement is sometimes translated as “plagiarism” despite not really fitting the English-language understanding of the difference between the two.

I couldn’t find Niuean references to verify it in your case, but my comment was accurate under Australian, UK, Canadian, New Zealand, US, and EU law. It’s possible some individual EU countries may differ, but not at the EU level, and certainly not in Slovakia, Germany, or France. So I am confident in using my comment as the general “default” assumption for discussions in English on international forums.

from a legal perspective it’s 100% plagiarism.

Plagiarism is not a legal concept. Copyright infringement and plagiarism are two circles of a Venn diagram with substantial overlap, but very noteworthy non-overlapping sections too.

Non-AI examples, to avoid any controversy, include that you can plagiarise by taking something from the public domain (e.g. the writing of Shakespeare or the music of Beethoven) and try to pass it off as your own. This would not be copyright infringement because the works belong to the public domain and are thus out of copyright, but it is still plagiarism, because plagiarism is a matter of academic integrity, not law. And you can do copyright infringement without plagiarising. That’s what happens every time someone uploads a full movie to YouTube and says “no copyright intended”.

I usually stare at their mouth if I’m talking to someone. How else do you concentrate on what they’re saying? Their eyes aren’t the part that talks.

I think google still listens to the quote operator first, but if that would return no results, it then returns the results without the quotes.

That seems to be what I’ve seen from my experience, anyway.

Work applications have been super bad when it comes to" people" sending me messages about my resume. Almost no real person has spoken to me.

What do you mean by this? Are applications getting rejected more than otherwise? Less than otherwise?

Yeah I was about to comment the same observation. All of a sudden I’m noticing multiple Grok tweets that say “every damn time”? Is that a racist dog whistle in itself?

Why is the tweet surrounded by what looks like a stainless steel bowl displayed under disco lighting?

Oh wow. I’ve actually never used Dvorak on mobile. I always like to tell people that the same thing that made QWERTY good on old mechanical typewriters, the thing that holds it back on modern keyboards, is what makes QWERTY good again in the algorithm-assisted typing of a modern touchscreen.

It takes ages to get good at

It took me about one week to reach a basic competency, two weeks before I was equal in both (though this was partly because my QWERTY speed had also fallen), one month before I reached my pre-Dvorak average speed, and I capped out at about 30% faster in Dvorak than I was in QWERTY.

(Note: my methodology in testing this was very imperfect. It relied on typing the same passage on each keyboard layout, once per day, changing the passage each week to avoid too much muscle memory. Certainly not scientific, but relatively useful as a demonstrative.)

In a broader sense, my average comfortable typing speed in QWERTY was about 60–70. When speed-typing, I could push that up to 80. And the top speed I would hit in typing games was about 100–105. In Dvorak, those numbers shifted to 80, 100, and 120.

Granted, the comment above (or it might have been one of the very few good points in the article linked from that comment, I forget) made mention of the fact that some of the benefit is not in the keyboard layout itself but in the act of re-learning as an adult. I strongly agree with this. A secondary part that is loosely related to this in practice (though not at all in theory) is that by learning Dvorak you are not just “re-learning as an adult”, but you are forced to learn proper typing technique. Hunt and peck obviously doesn’t work when looking at your fingers shows you the wrong letters because the keyboard hardware is labelled according to QWERTY. Even a sort of situation where you are mostly touch typing, but imperfectly with the need to glance down occasionally, even if just for reassurance (which is where I was at with QWERTY) does not work with Dvorak. You become—you must become—a fluent typist. This may not be theoretically an advantage inherent to Dvorak, but for so long as the rest of the world is using QWERTY, it certainly is, as a matter of fact, an advantage. And for that reason, even if no other, I do strongly recommend anyone even vaguely considering it to switch.

causes a lot of little annoyances when random programs decide to ignore your layout settings

Not a problem I’ve encountered very often.

or you sit down at someone else’s computer and start touch typing in the wrong layout from muscle memory

This does happen. But personally I have found that my QWERTY speed is still faster than most people’s, even if it’s now a lot slower than either my Dvorak speed or what my QWERTY speed used to be. It takes maybe 10 seconds to adjust mentally. And if it’s a computer you’re going to be using regularly, just add Dvorak to it—it’s a simple keyboard shortcut to switch back and forth.

or games tell you to press “E” when they mean “.”

Games are one of the most frustrating, in part because of the inconsistency. The three different ways that different games handle it. My favourite are the ones that just translate back into QWERTY for you. That listen for the physical key press, then display on screen an instruction that assumes QWERTY. My second favourite tends to be in older games only, and it’s where it listens for the character you typed; on these it’s as easy as just quickly switching back to QWERTY while playing that game. The worst, but still very manageable are where they listen for the physical key press and display the correct letter for that key according to Dvorak. But you quickly learn to associate a key with muscle memory, so it’s not really an issue in practice.

Anyway, all of this is wildly off topic. Because my original comment was memeing. Nobody was meant to take it seriously. It was, as the kids say, for the lulz.

2 definitely does happen a lot with conservatives, but I think it’s a stretch to suggest it happened here. The evidence @[email protected] provided seems a little inconclusive to me (I’d really want to see a broader history of satirical comments and/or anti-AI-hype comments prior to this tweet to be the real proof, not an after-the-fact comment which could be taken either way), but on the face of it taking the first tweet seriously is a bit ridiculous. Had they used some self-help book or a piece of genre fiction (even excellent quality genre fiction) it might have become a bit more ambiguous (even then, the idea that someone would sincerely hold out the idea of AI summaries as being equivalent to actually reading a book is a fucking stretch), but using Tolstoy? Someone famous for the quality of his prose? Give me a break. Nobody believes that.

1 is obviously just subjective and meaningless. Personally, had I seen the original tweet without context, I think I would have found it funny as a parody of the AI-hyping techbros. You’re welcome to disagree, but only insofar as you disagree that you personally found it funny. You are not welcome to make a generic sweeping statement that “it was not funny”.

Dvorak. It’s a person’s name, so only the first letter is capitalised.

Anyway, that article uses a lot of words to come to…basically no conclusion whatsoever. I don’t know why anyone would link it when trying to make any sort of a point.

In much simpler terms:

Think of an IP address like a street address. 192 My Street.

There might be multiple businesses at one street address. In real life we address them with things like 1/192 My Street and 2/192 My Street, but there’s no direct parallel to that in computer networks. Instead, what we do is more like directing your letter to say “Business A c/o 192 My Street”. That’s what SNI does.

Because we have to write all of that on the outside of the envelope, everyone gets to see that we’re communicating with Business A. But what if one of the businesses at 192 My Street is highly sensitive and we’d rather people didn’t know we were communicating with them? @[email protected]’s proposal is basically like if you put the “Business A” part inside the envelope, so the mailman (and anyone who sees the letter on the way) only see that it’s going to 192 My Street. Then the front room at that address could open the envelope and see that the ultimate destination is Business A, and pass it along to them.

obligatory NJB