I’ve started playing through some classic SNES and GBA games.

Chrono Trigger – Oh man, this one’s good. The soundtrack is on fire, and the game does a good job at making you feel like your actions make a difference.

Metroid Fusion – If you told me this was made in 2024, I’d probably believe you. It has a sense of pacing and suspense that I wasn’t expecting for a metroidvania.

I haven’t gotten very far in either, but so far it’s looking like they’ve aged like wine.

I gotta say, this was a weird week to start HRT.

I don’t know whether or not an entire month is the right timeframe, but I definitely agree with the principle of counting to ten before you speak. I’ve already made at least one discussion worse by failing to consider my tone. If my ideas are worth sharing now, they’ll be worth sharing when the moratorium is over, and they’ll only gain nuance by being left in the oven for longer.

They made their decisions and you made yours. If you decided that we’d be better off with Trump, that’s on you. Own it.

Putting Trump in office makes Gaza worse. He’s promised us as much. Maybe you proved a point to the Democrats, and maybe you didn’t. Maybe now they’ll lean even harder to the center. Who knows. That’s a gamble you took, and you made steep sacrifices to make that gamble.

Gambling with someone’s life to make a political point does not make you their ally.

I’m guessing (hoping) you’re joking here and having a laugh at us all taking you too seriously. But I’ve seen enough of lemmy to doubt that.

If your accelerationist ideology is unironically promoting nuclear holocaust as its self-evidently ideal endgame, you’re long overdue for your “are we the baddies” moment. Maybe (definitely) stay off social media for a bit as you re-examine how you got here and who’s lied to you along the way.

Based on Drew Builds Stuff:

• Stuff Made Here, applying high technology and robotics to low-stakes challenges.
• The Thought Emporium (Also on Nebula). One day, they’re artificially aging whiskey with ultrasound, the next, the host is editing his own genes to remove lactose intolerance.

Based on the intersection of building and the great outdoors:

• Quiet Nerd, who’s been building a lot of camping equipment lately.

Some shots in the dark, based on exploration and documenting the unseen:

• Exploring the Unbeaten Path, urban exploration with some unique locations.
• Crime Pays But Botany Doesn’t, identifying plants.

Based on Baumgartner Restoration:

• Hand Tool Rescue, a channel where they lovingly restore antique tools and machines.

While I don’t say this as a criticism of the author, it is worth pointing out that she’s also failed to adapt to the new technologies. She talks about how teachers will need to adapt to the new tools but ultimately places the blame on the students rather than reconsidering who her audience is.

How would you propose adapting to this? Do you believe it’s the teacher’s responsibility to enact this change rather than (for example) a principal or board of directors?

The average teacher does not have the luxury of choosing their audience. Ideally you’d only teach students who want to learn, but in reality teachers are given a class of students and ordered to teach them. If enough students fail their exams, or if the teacher gives up on the ones who don’t care, the teacher is assumed to be at fault and gets fired.

You can theoretically change your exams so that chatbot-dependent students will fail, or lower your bar because chatbots are “good enough” for everyday life. But thanks to standardized testing, most teachers do not have the power to change their success metrics in either direction.

This article is about PhD students coasting through their technical writing courses using chatbots. This is an environment/application where the product (writing a paper) is secondary to the process (critical analysis), so being able to use a chatbot is missing the point. Even if it were, cancelling your technical writing class to replace it with an AI-wrangling class is not a curriculum modification but an abdication. Doing that can get your program canceled, and could even get a tenured professor fired.

The author was really stuck between a rock and a hard place. Re-evaluating the systemic circumstances that incentivize cheating is crucially important – on that we absolutely agree – but it’s a responsibility that should be directed at those with actual power over that system.

[Edit: taking the tone down a notch.]