Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | osculum's commentslogin

Im surprised to hear that. I went to Caltech for my postgrad and never collaborated on an test, and it would have never ocurre me to do so (and no, the professor didn’t have to explicitly say they collaboration was not allowed. It was just the standard honor code).

We all suspected of people that didn’t adhere to the honor code and it was frowned upon, and they could have faced repercussions if anyone had reported them.


He or she is telling on himself. Cheaters always project.

I looked at materials hidden in my desk for one question during a quiz in fifth grade and it still gnaws at me. Cheaters suck.


I am curious if there is a specific personality trait that is hard-wired (from birth) into certain people (like the Big Five OCEAN psychology model) to adhere more closely to honour codes. I too had a pretty strong natural adherence, even from a young age, and no one "beat it into me".


I don't know about the big 5 but in the six-factor 'open source' version (the HEXACO) the 'H' stands for 'honesty/humility' https://hexaco.org/


Bit depressing to see the mode of this board swing towards “people couldn’t possibly have honor,” huh?


I did ChemE for undergrad and aerospace focused on systems engineering for postgrad so that colored my experience a bit. The former was brutal and the latter naturally collaborative with a bunch of projects, so we all worked together.

The postgrad continuum mechanics class (I think taught by the geophysics department?) was the biggest exception so I’m betting there’s quite a bit of variance among fields.

I don’t doubt there’s academic fraud (living in the dorm my first year wiped away any illusion) but within my major it didn’t end well.


I was an undergrad at Caltech in the late 80s and likewise it never even occurred to us to cheat on take-home exams. Maybe things have changed.

People did plenty of collaboration on homework sets. Some of the harder ones were almost impossible unless you did, like those 20 page Phys98 homework sets...


> they could have faced repercussions if anyone had reported them.

Did people report them?


Not that I know of. I just heard rumors but never saw it myself.


Couldn't you use it with a Codex subscription? Plus is $20 per month


I think the claude EULA has now explicitly banned this use https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/907074/a...


That's Anthropic. Codex is OpenAI.


For what it's worth, codex doesn't yet seem to be aggressively terminating accounts or invalidating auth tokens if they detect usage in a non-first party tool. Whether that will continue to be the case or not a gamble though.



Claude is not Codex.


Even the diagrams


Years ago, I worked at Apple at the same time as Ian Goodfellow. This was before ChatGPT (I'd say around 2019).

I had the chance to chat with him, and what I remember most was his concern that GANs would eventually be able to generate images indistinguishable from reality, and that this would create a misinformation problem. He argued for exactly what you’re mentioning: chips that embed cryptographic proof that a photo was captured by a camera and haven't been modified.


That's your reading of the situation, and far from logical to everyone else.


It does. I just checked mine today. I can see exactly which individual email addresses in my domain where exposed and in which data leak. I have never paid for it.


Interesting. I'd love to see where you're seeing that. I'll go poke at the site a little more.

Edit: When I try to do a domain search I get told:

> Domain search restricted: You don't have an active subscription so you're limited to searching domains with up to 10 breached addresses (excluding addresses in spam lists).

My domain has 11 breached addresses.


I log in. Click on Business -> Domains. Then click on the looking glass under "Actions" on my domain. I can there see all my addresses an Pwned Sites.

But I think you are right, because I only have 3 breached addresses under my domain (I do see the 10 addresses wording under subscriptions)


Yep, if you have the good fortune of having many breaches while using companname@example.org, the service requires that either you pay up or you have to guess and check.

I understand, but it's frustrating.


> Taxation without representation (i'm suggesting adding the latter, not removing the former)

Happens to permanent residents too, not only employment visas.


correct.

I'm not sure the solution, because visas/Perm cannot vote. But at least the latter can (afaik ianal) contribute to political campaigns.


Does that make sense though? It seems appropriate to me that only citizens of a country can vote in the elections of such country (US or elsewhere). It’s definitely more complicated than “no taxation without representation”.

Some counter arguments from the top of my head:

What about tourists? They pay taxes while they are here too.

What about electoral interference? It’s way easier to pay taxes than to gain citizenship; this would create a perverse incentive.

What about allegiance? When you become a citizen you pledge allegiance to the US. Not when you pay taxes. Would incentives be aligned?

What about citizen only duties? (male) Citizens have to sign up for selective service and might have to go to war. Not so with H1Bs (though, to your point, permanent residents have to do it). Would it be fair to offer voting rights to everyone even if they don’t have the same duties?


Off topic, but if I slide left to right I get a tutorial jquery.mmenu on this page.




I still have mine with rockbox installed. I had to replace the battery, and the clip broke years ago, but I haven’t found anything like it to replace it.


I had this setup many years ago too. Then the clip zip, also with rockbox. Loved that thing.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: