Anyone else getting a 404?
How can you be so dense?
Using a calculator for math is cheating unless it has been explicitly allowed. Which it isn't until higher grades because before that, people are supposed to do math without a calculator. Which they should do to get a proper understanding about the subject.
The same holds for literally any tool. If the goal is to get the students to be able to convincingly communicate their thoughts or to see if they understood a topic by making them explain it, having them use chatgpt accomplished nothing and just wastes everybody's time. If the goal is to see if they can produce enough bullshit to satisfy an average public administration, then letting them use llms might be valid. Just like any other tool, it's legitimate to allow llms or not, based on whatever is supposed to end up in a student's head. But using it without it being allowed is cheating, simple as that.
If only they were using search engines. Instead, they're using algorithms that learned in which order humans like to see alphabetic characters in response to some input alphabetic characters.
"cheese"
Who am I to diss a brie?
Sean just stood down there and did fuck all, so I guess being honoured is already more than he could expect.
- i actually think that if pickups had lower hoods, they would be more moral, yes, because they would be less dangerous. (see above)
Fair point. I agree.
I always assumed that the bonnet height was one of the reasons why you couldn't really drive one of those in Europe anyway. But if that's not the case then yes, adjusting that should be done.
(Also I drive a van and I think it's cool since obviously I'm cool and so my car kinda has to be, too, so I'm not sure if I agree with your first point.)
But isn't that already part of regulations 78/2009 and 2019/2144?
I mean, I'm all for it, but if it's just that it seems the goal is to get more detailed regulations for the bonnet then that's great, but I fail to see how that would get rid of SUVs or other larger cars.
Also don't misunderstand me there... Reducing bonnet height to protect pedestrians on impact is a good thing and should be done. I just don't think it'd reduce car weight or size, so if that's the goal then it won't help.
You just have to have so much money that the money makes you more money than you need in castle upkeep.
We've had station wagons for a very long time now. A big Ford Mondeo we had was a relatively low car, without an enormous bonnet.
Cars continue to get wider, longer and higher off the ground (there's this Kia that looks like you're driving around in a fridge), whilst the stuff we move within them isn't exactly increasing. it's just bigger for the sake of being bigger, and that's causing issues in the streets.
You are missing my point. To turn this into a law, there need to be clear rules of what is or isn't allowed.
The Kia you're talking about is this one I guess? The EV5?
Unfortunately, the size comparison site I used doesn't have that, but it is apparently similar to their "Sportage" SUV, so I took the long wheel base version of that one to compare it against your old Mondeo...
... which is longer than the SUV...
... and only 5cm less wide ...
whilst the stuff we move within them isn't exactly increasing
... and has much less cargo volume.
So, what kind of rules do you come up with to get rid of the one but not the other? Height? Then what about the vans? And how is height making a car more or less unethical?
So far, the 3.5 ton weight limit seems to have worked well for keeping the most ridiculous American cars off European streets. But it seems that's not enough, so what other rules could be used to define which cars shouldn't be allowed to drive around? It's obviously not weight because we already have that. It's apparently not the size because despite most arguments, SUVs aren't always much bigger than other cars that are usually perceived as fine. So what is it??
I hate how this needs to be read right-to-left. First thought that the ui took up less and less space.
It's just a small plastic spaceship.
But... sigh
view more: next ›
Not with that attitude.