Dr. Guy McHendry

#need to know the context of this dog being drawn in ryland’s classroom pls

This is the wrong call! It denied the #Penguins of a goal AND a power play as Colorado would have lost challenge. @pbourque29 is correct. The NHL has a big problem answering what should be an easy question. What is goaltender interference?!?!

When Jared Hewitt’s co-worker claimed last winter that Hewitt used AI to write an incident report for the day care they work at. The co-worker pointed to the words ‘juxtaposition’ and ­‘circumstantial’ as evidence of a machine-generated influence. “I don’t write in a casual way but a much more serious, precise way,” he says. “And I’ve paid the price for living in a ChatGPT society.” It wasn’t the first time Hewitt’s prose has been pegged as AI, and he thinks he knows why. He has a stutter, and when he’s typing, he can speak uninterrupted. It is a luxury he takes full advantage of. Hewitt is also neurodivergent. “Growing up, I had a strong obsession with writing,” he says. He was always given good grades in English, but now, with the massive uptick in AI-generated text, all the time he spent happily working to improve his prose strikes him as a liability. There’s a new entity among us, and it’s getting better at disguising itself. The mood is paranoid: This presence is ­producing a gigantic amount of language, much of it filtered through people we know, whether they’re using it for Hinge messages or LinkedIn posts. The effect is that everyone is trying to ­figure out who is LLM and who is human. Sometimes, we are getting it wrong. “People are going off vibes,” says the historical novelist Kerry Chaput, who was horrified when a reader thought a social-media post she wrote about her neurogenic cough was ChatGPT generated. Emma Alpern reports on the people — often non-native English speakers and autistic writers — being falsely accused of using LLMs to write: nymag.visitlink.me/kzDs4g

@SaraWeissman: Utah is leading the way in protecting student conscience. A new bill allows students to opt out of assignments that violate their deeply held beliefs and bans compelled speech in the classroom. insidehighered.com/news/governmen…

ever been here? open overleaf → write a paragraph → "hmm...this needs a citation" → open 15 different tabs → skim 8 abstracts → find the 1 actually relevant paper → format bibtex → paste it back on overleaf if so, i built a plugin just for you. meet openleaf: → reads your paper paragraph by paragraph → searches major academic databases → filters out irrelevant papers using ai → one click to add BibTeX to your .bib you'll also find the 🤝 friendly and 🔥 fire reviewers there. i don't think i need to tell you what they do :) free. open source. no account. no data collection. works with ollama, openrouter, openai api and more. github.com/demfier/openle… dear algorithm, please show this to my fellow researchers in need 🙏 #overleaf #latex #opensource #academictwitter

In the Trump era, many young women were attracted to the New Right because it felt less constrained, stuffy, and dogmatic than the left. Perhaps it was. A little sexism was a small price to pay for entry to a party without Woke-scolds policing the playlist. For women especially, contempt for feminist pieties, if deftly channeled, could be one’s ticket to stardom. Now, a growing group of right-wing women — both prominent personalities and loyal foot soldiers — are waking up to find that their inclusion in the MAGA movement was contingent: Sexism wasn’t merely the price of entry; it was the theme of the party. According to the conservative women @SamAdlerBell has spoken to over the past several months — all at one point active in MAGA, some active still — anxiety and disgust over sexism has been steadily growing since the beginning of Trump’s second term. It’s spiked since last fall, they say, when the movement began openly embracing Nick Fuentes, whose visceral hatred of women makes the male chauvinists of the past seem enlightened. “These men have made it very, very clear that they will ‘rape, kill, and die’ for Nick Fuentes,” Anna, who wrote for popular right-wing outlets, says. MAGA is “insisting that women subject themselves entirely to male authority, while advertising that male authority will be cruel and vicious and fickle.” Some of the right-wing women Adler-Bell spoke to feel a certain amount of regret over her complicity. “​​Shame and guilt and just embarrassment,” Anna says, “Just like how could I tolerate this and participate in this?” Adler-Bell reports on the women defecting from the New Right over its sexism: nymag.visitlink.me/7Gba1-

Playing the role of @mckaycoppins apologist. The main criticisms seem to be: 1) Nitpicky technicalities like "no, books don't balance their action". True, and maybe could have been a bit better researched, but doesn't change the point of any of it. 2) "He bet like an idiot". He played props and SGPs. He wildly fluctuated his bet sizes for no apparent reason. He bet with his fandom. He tailed Sean fucking Perry. But that's the whole point! He experienced betting from the perspective of a newbie. Newbies do stupid things. Newbies overestimate their abilities. Newbies get lured by flashy ads and scamming touts. Newbies don't know any better. Anyone who thinks the average American's betting journey is more like ours than like McKay's is crazy. 3) "He was betting someone else's money". Yeah, he was. And in fairness it is reasonable to question how much of his decision making was influenced by that. I'd like to know what he would have done next if his Patriots bet had won. Hopefully he'll tell us. It would have been great to give this assignment to a journalist who was willing to put up his own money (and without any religious objections). I have no idea if the Atlantic had access to such a person. 4) "His plan all along was to go broke because it would make a better article as a cautionary tale". Maybe...but nothing in the article read as anything but genuine to me. Combined with everything I know about devout Mormons (admittedly not all that much), my prior is pretty low on his approach to this being so cynical and disingenous. I could be wrong. 5) "It's a hit piece on the industry". Yeah, it kind of is. So is @dannyfunt 's book (which I also thought was good). So are the other articles that have been written recently about betting. But you know what? I don't find any of it unfair. The marketing of recreational books is pure psychological warfare in a way that sets it apart from booze, cigarettes, etc. It takes advantage of evolutionary weaknesses in the way the human brain reasons, to make people think it's easier to win than it actually is. My own father, who is very much NOT a stupid person, had me put a bet down for him on Indiana -8 in the CFP championship because "they're a much better team and they'll kill Miami". If you're following me and reading this, there's a good chance that you either were born with or acquired the ability to think probabilistically. You are in the minority. For the rest of the population, it's like handing an AK-47 to a chimpanzee and asking him to use it responsibly. I'm not saying we should abolish sports betting or gambling in general. I am saying the way it's currently being done has some bad societal consequences that are being ignored in the pursuit of profit, including regulatory capture by lobbyists which IMO is one of the most evil aspects of the current lawmaking environment.