If you're doing a large-scale study, exam scores are basically the only way to get quantitative data.
And, exams aren't that bad! A well-designed exam can't be passed by merely recalling information, because it will give you novel problems that require reasoning with the material on a deeper level.
Also, explicit test prep—where you basically teach strategies for cheating the test—universally sucks, but presumably that's not what the study is measuring.
> Classical Latin [has] extremely complex grammars compared to any modern European language
…I know almost nothing about this topic, but this doesn’t line up with what people who know Latin have told me. They’ve frequently cited the language’s simple grammar as something they like about it.
(Classical) Latin nouns have one of 3 genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), and each noun has 12 possible forms (6 cases * 2 numbers); pronouns follow similar rules; and the adjectives modifying a noun have to agree with it in case, gender, and number (so typically a single adjective has 36 possible forms). Verbs vary by voice (active/passive), mood (indicative, subjunctive, imperative, infinitive, participle, gerund, supine), tense (different moods have different numbers of tenses, with 6 for the indicative), number (singular or plural), and person (3 persons); overall, a single verb will have more than a hundred different forms.
Because verbs have so many specific forms, it is also pretty common in Latin, as in most modern Romance languages, to omit the subject of a sentence, as it can typically be inferred from context plus the specific verb form - so, you often have to recognize the verb form to be able to understand who the sentence is even talking about (e.g. a sentence might say "amo regem"; if you recognize the words but not the specific forms, this means "love king"; but this unambiguously means "I love the king").
Now, there is quite a bit of regularity here - there are 5 categories of regular verbs (plus some specific irregular verbs), and 5 categories of nouns (though there are multiple sub-categories, as there is some variation in noun forms even in the same category; plus of course some irregular nouns).
Overall no, I don't see any comparison where you could say that Latin is a simple language. All modern Romance languages have universally merged or dropped various of these features. For example, Spanish drops the case system entirely, drops the neuter gender, and reduces the number of moods for verbs.
> All modern Romance languages have universally merged or dropped various of these features.
Wikipedia informs me that Romanian is a Romance language and has retained some of it. Also, the Slavic languages have largely retained most or all of what you’re describing, although they are not classified as Romance languages.
I am a Romanian native, so I know quite a bit about it :D . Romanian has kept the major features, but it still dropped a lot. For example, instead of 6 noun cases, Romanian only has 3, of which only 2 are commonly used (the third, vocative - "hey, you, bird!" - is quite rarely needed; and even when it is, it's usually replaced with the nominative by most speakers - we commonly say "pisica rea!" instead of "pisico rea!" for "bad cat!"). There are also fewer verb tenses in Romanian than Classical Latin, and some are formed with auxiliary verbs instead of being truly separate verb forms. Also, the neuter gender, while technically existing in Romanian nouns, is simply masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural, there is no unique third form for adjectives or articles.
Slavic languages also have a case system (I think it's possible that this is part of why Romanian kept the Latin case system, as there was quite a bit of Slavic influence in Romanian), but they didn't "retain" it from Latin, as they are not Romance languages at all - they simply share this linguistic feature; Latin and Old Slavonic are by no means the only languages with a case system.
Indeed. Children and not "little adults". They are emotionally and intellectually immature, literally with the brain and body growing into to the capabilities of an adult.
And if good habits are not instilled, they will have a difficult life ahead of them. It's far easier to learn those habits when young, than to try to independently course correct as an adult.
Not coercing a child towards correct behaviours, is doing them a great disservice. In some circumstances, it's child abuse to not coerce those bahaviours.
There's a huge difference between a loving parent gently but firmly teaching their kid to clean their teeth every day even though they don't want to, and a brutal schoolteacher beating facts into a class full of miserable kids.
There is a difference. Yet that's the point. Because "beating facts" and "miserable kids" is not necessarily inferred from 'coerced', as opposed to 'gently but firmly', and that's why people are clarifying so.
There is in fact little difference between "you have to learn these things" and "brushing your teeth".
Another possible reason that occurred to me: what if you have VRAM but you're not using it all the time? For example, let's say you bought a GPU because you like to play video games. When you're not actively gaming, you probably don't need 16 GB of VRAM just to render the desktop. Might as well use it for something else, right?
Edit: Although, this is predicated on the system being able to release VRAM that is acting as swap when it's time to start a game. Can it do that?
While it may prevent sleep, one of the frustrations I have on an old skylake desktop with a bunch of 1080ti GPUs is that when set to power saving modes, the GPUs sit at 1x2.0 pcie lanes and low wattage. That slows down loading quite a bit.
So it will use more power, but nothing close to when the GPU is being used.
Is VRAM not directly accessible by the system then? Since it's mapped directly into the CPU's address space, I had assumed that there's a simple DMA controller managing said access and I would then also naively assume that said controller is separate (or at least on a separate power plane) from the actual GPU.
they are talking about the scenario of having a discreet GPU in addition to the GPU on the CPU. So there's 2 GPUs, and the nvidia one has its own VRAM (typically of the GDDR variety even) that isn't shared with system RAM (hence the purpose of this project). So that also means 2 memory controllers.
It's easy enough to 'offline' swap space on Linux normally so I suspect that would work fine, as long as you didn't instantly run out of RAM when doing so.
Best case is if gaming and productivity (with high memory use) activities are not concurrent, and productivity applications are stopped before gaming starts, then `swapoff` can easily release swap device without restart.
These ways to get paid could be represented as a table:
They Want Lies They Want Truth
+--------------+---------------+
You Tell Lies | become rich | ??? |
+--------------+---------------+
You Tell Truth | go broke | make a living |
+--------------+---------------+
Notice how the upper right quadrant is left out of TFA. If you end up there, I don't think things go well for you. By which I mean, like, you could end up in jail.
Maybe telling lies isn't such a great business idea after all?
To be fair (and perhaps overly pedantic), while the article title is "three ways to get paid," the quoted maxim begins "there are three ways to make a living."
It then goes on to say that the third way will make you "go broke", which seems somewhat contradictory.
> However, I would like to point out that Apple isn't totally wrong here because the accessibility API unfortunately is way too broadly scoped, and because of that you literally get access to everything on the computer like you you can screenshot listen and and move the cursor...
Yes but miffing to open Privacy & Security & see dozens of apps pretending to need “accessibility” features. Apple has a dozen+ categories there but many poweruser apps I want specifically need accessibility.
Is there an opinionated reason not to break out capabilities?
> Is there an opinionated reason not to break out capabilities?
If you have a disability and need tools to use your computer the last thing you want to do is have those things not only off by default but complicated and involved to turn on.
Is there a reason a capability has to be covered by only a single permission? Why not have one accessibility permission that covers all that and then a bunch of individual permissions for non-accessibility apps?
As a programming practice in service of the principle of least privilege, that would make complete sense.
The issue is with Apple's UX. Apple insists on asking permission for every little capability an app wants. So I would have to say "yes, allow this app to take screenshots" and "yes, allow this app to read the clipboard".
I wouldn't be surprised if, in the near future, Apple forced people to click "yes, allow this app to read the clipboard from app X" and then separately "yes, allow this app to read the clipboard for app Y" and so on for every single other app on my machine.
Apple does not allow you to say, "yes, I trust this #$@-ing app, please allow it to do whatever it needs."
> If there was a way to disable this, first thing that the grandma would do is watch a video how to disable that and lose security from then on.
My grandma absolutely would not watch and follow a video on how to e.g. disable Gatekeeper, nor do I think she’d be able to if she tried.
Your grandma sounds substantially more tech savvy than my grandma. Good for her, she seems to know what she wants. Grown adults should be allowed to knowingly opt into an additional level of risk.
I still don't understand the threat. Is it that a user who is not "worthy" of more permissive security may nonetheless be capable of enabling more permissive security?
I can put that more charitably by thinking about it in terms of informed consent, ie does the user understand the risks involved. But if you're concerned that someone following a video tutorial or seeking out a friend has not consented, then I think your standard for what constitutes consent is ludicrously high!
And if it turns out that lots of people are consenting to something, that isn't a failure of design. You asked your users a question, and they gave you an answer.
The threat is that users who are not sufficiently tech savvy will shoot themselves in the foot, including using methods they don't understand. This is a pattern we've seen play out numerous times. The more secure platforms are overwhelmingly the ones that protect the users from themselves, and (most) users value security over absolute computing freedom.
> The more secure platforms are overwhelmingly the ones that protect the users from themselves
More secure by what metric? I would expect that by definition, they are equally secure until the security settings are disabled. If the user disabled a security setting, of course that system is less secure, that's a choice the user made in exchange for some other benefit.
> (most) users value security over absolute computing freedom.
How do you know this? I think that if they're disabling security settings, it's probably because they value freedom/capabilities over security. And you may think this is the wrong choice, but it's theirs to make.
Accurate enough. Those platforms are more secure. But given that many players have a liability-related interest in making sure everyone uses Secure Platforms:
- Many important things that are needed or at least highly useful for daily life will only support "Secure Platforms"
- Everyone will have to use "Secure Platforms" whether they would value computing freedom or not
- "Not As Secure Platforms" will be unsupported and treated as roughly equivalent to malware.
We can see this already literally playing out - it's the whole point of the browser attestation idea.
So thanks to this thinking, we'll get one secure package - Firmware, OS, Browser, all cryptographically sealed. None of them changeable, no "tampering," like adblockers, tracking blockers. No programs that could, say, show you what other programs are phoning home. No third-party programs at all, unless they've paid the platform fee and agreed to Platform Vendor's terms.
You can always use Linux, if you can figure out the drivers, and if you're ok just browsing GNU websites and the Indie Web. Everyone else will block that dirty, non-attested traffic. "It's probably bots," they'll say.
And, exams aren't that bad! A well-designed exam can't be passed by merely recalling information, because it will give you novel problems that require reasoning with the material on a deeper level.
Also, explicit test prep—where you basically teach strategies for cheating the test—universally sucks, but presumably that's not what the study is measuring.
reply