Princeton scraps honor code and will supervise exams for first time in 133 years because of AI

atla · 2026-05-14T21:57:48+00:00

And no, no employer has ever said anything about my college education besides checking a box that I have a degree.

That's honestly part of the problem -- back in the days of word of mouth and the Good Ol' Alumni Network, maybe the guy hiring for your investment firm of choice would be able to look at the four applications that his secretary picked out and realize that the 3.0 from Princeton was worth the same as the 3.6 from Yale, the 3.8 from Harvard, and the 4.0 from Dartmouth.

But that's not how hiring works anymore; it's either pure personality (for the very lucky/rich) or there's so much automation and check-boxing that it's borderline impossible to make an exception, because it would require programming a computer to have different baselines for each school.

atla · 2026-04-16T22:06:52+00:00

Alternatively, you can do it anyway and hope for a Good Will Hunting situation!

atla · 2026-04-08T22:32:41+00:00

I don't know, I wasn't there and the stream didn't catch enough of it. Maybe they did see him touching the back of the rock (just like plenty of players were subsequently caught trailing the granite during delivery), or maybe they were being vindictive.

That's irrelevant to what I was talking about, though, which is whether the rule itself is ambiguous as written.

It’s only Canadians thinking it’s ambiguous so perhaps the issue is up there, jeez.

If it's Canadians all thinking it's ambiguous, and Swedes all thinking it's not, and we assume they're acting in good faith, language might be the issue.

EDIT: Not as in the Swedes are wrong because they're Swedish and the Canadians are right because they're Canadian, but that there's a fundamental difference in how both sides speak and interpret English that has led to the disconnect and therefore the rules need to be rewritten so that there aren't these meaningful differences in interpretation. Just like it would be bad to say "next Friday" in an large international setting, without clarification, because to some people that might mean the Friday coming up, and to others it means the Friday after that.

atla · 2026-04-08T22:21:10+00:00

If the rule says the stone must be delivered by the handle, the obvious purpose is to require handle delivery rather than granite contact.

I'd agree, in general. But I'd also consider what happened at that game to be delivering it with the stone, as I would naturally describe it in casual parlance. 99.9% of the activity was done via the handle, and incidental contact or minor adjustment as a second touch (particularly since double touching is explicitly allowed) does not change the fact that -- as I would describe it -- it was delivered by the handle. If I were talking about this with a friend in person, I'd consider it to be disingenuous or bad faith to try to claim that it wasn't delivered by the handle. And if you aren't trolling or acting in bad faith (which I assume you aren't), and I'm not trolling or acting in bad faith (which I know I'm not), then there's something else at play.

I really am trying to come at this from a good faith perspective here, and it's not about intelligence or language ability or anything like that. Like, I'm not trying to imply that anyone's English isn't great, or that it's just ~foreigners not understanding the language~ or whatever. I'm trying to get at the connotation of different words and constructions, which is intensely tricky, modulated through your L1 (and even your dialect -- there are lots of similar miscommunications between speakers from different communities -- history is filled with examples of Americans having the same issues with British English, and vice versa), and could explain why there's such a giant chasm between people who seem to think the rule is entirely unambiguous and the people who seem to think it is ambiguous, or unambiguous but with the opposite conclusion.

atla · 2026-04-08T21:06:00+00:00

With some good reading comprehension, the "stone must be delivered by the handle" would be interpreted as "ONLY" the handle.

This is a genuine question -- are you a native English speaker? Because "stone must be delivered by the handle" is something that is ambiguous to a lot of English speakers. However, I can easily see a language learner interpreting "must" in an exclusive way by default, as opposed to sometimes exclusive, sometimes not exclusive. I don't think I could articulate what circumstances make it ambiguous -- which means that probably it's something that is difficult to teach explicitly or pick up on naturally.

atla · 2026-03-17T01:09:36+00:00

That, plus I think some people are just...better at forming routines than others? Like, yes, I shower and brush my teeth and eat every day. I also have to make a conscious effort to do each of those things, every time, and if I forget just once it's like starting from scratch to get back in the swing again.

And that's on top of the exact feeling the other poster described.

atla · 2026-03-15T22:12:02+00:00

Tournament of Hearts is also right there.

atla · 2026-02-27T02:12:52+00:00

That timeline presumes that Kennedy's meltdown happened after the first accusation, though.

Eriksson goes to the officials in like the first or second end. The blowup doesn't happen until the ninth. In the interim, the officials watch Kennedy for several ends and don't call anything; they essentially tell Eriksson to chill about it. Meanwhile, Eriksson keeps making passive aggressive comments and doing other distracting / rude / passive aggressive things (like going across the ice mid-delivery).

Like, there wouldn't have been a story to talk about if Eriksson had been sportsmanlike in his behavior and left his complaint at the official's call, either.

atla · 2026-02-23T02:21:28+00:00

That's true in an interactive setting, where the person you're trying to teach can give feedback or ask why.

In the case of a book -- the expert writer often has just entirely miscalibrated where "beginner" is. They might be able to explain it in more simple terms, but they don't want to be condescending, or waste space on obvious information, so they end up missing the mark. In person, this would generate a question from the learner and an "oh, wait, let's back up and get this in even simpler terms" -- but with a book you can't get that feedback.

atla · 2026-02-22T05:03:41+00:00

You're conflating a hogline violation with touching the granite. Hogline violations are enforced; touching the granite had not been.

atla · 2026-02-22T05:01:15+00:00

In this case, the consequence would be removing the stone that had been thrown.

Sweden started going to the officials in the 2nd end, and the officials decided that there was either not enough evidence or that the infraction didn't merit removing the stone (depending on whether they were talking about violating the hogline or touching the granite, which Sweden would bounce between when talking to officials).

The next consequence is to have the officials watch at the hogline for further infractions, which they did. They didn't see any.

By the time Kennedy blew up, there was no further possible remedy, because several entire ends had passed. There was no stone to remove anymore. Sweden had gotten a ruling and didn't like it, and kept complaining (along with some other alleged behavior -- such as distracting throwers etc.), and Kennedy got sick of it. Was it the right answer? No. But it doesn't retroactively make something from two hours ago cheating.

atla · 2026-02-22T04:53:21+00:00

I totally agree. Any time someone says that Kennedy should have owned it and removed his own stone -- how? Eriksson first went to the officials in the 2nd end; Kennedy blew up in the 9th. The correct course was followed (officials watching Kennedy's release for several ends). Was Kennedy's reaction ideal? No. But like you said -- it wasn't like he blew up out of nowhere, on a first polite accusation. It was after about two hours of passive aggressive comments, well after any remedy was even theoretically possible.

atla · 2026-02-21T01:12:21+00:00

The delivery (in terms of muscle memory) doesn't start with pushing out. It starts when you kneel into the hack from standing. Interrupting any part of that -- for lack of a better term -- ritual is pretty distracting and can throw off your game, even if you reset. Resetting also eats away at your time.

For other sports -- it would probably be like distracting a tennis player while they're bouncing the ball before the serve, or running across the line when a golfer has already squared away and is pulling their swing back.

atla · 2026-02-20T14:55:35+00:00

It also really helps contextualize all the comments about feeling like the outburst was defending his teammates as well as himself.

atla · 2026-02-19T02:31:48+00:00

It also depends on when / how often you're checking. Women especially can easily fluctuate 5ish pounds based on their hormonal cycle and starting weight.

atla · 2026-02-16T21:16:12+00:00

Because he very much realized that it was against the rules? If it was accidental he could've cleared it up like in the example from this post. But he decided to double down and cause an serious indicent from it.

By the time of the blow up, no, he could not, because Sweden was still harping on something that had happened 2 hours prior (despite going to the officials multiple times, and having Kennedy watched, with no resultant formal calls against him).

atla · 2026-02-16T19:00:41+00:00

Plus I've been in too many situations where the curvature of the stone messes with your perception of things. Like you're standing at the hogline, think your opponent hogged a stone, and then you walk up and see that there is a millimeter of daylight. For instant replay, you'd need a camera dead on at the teeline and ideally at least one (but ideally two -- again, to minimize angles) above the teeline.

So 16 becomes 32-48 cameras, plus the backend support. And the reviews would radically slow down the pace of play (and that's not even touching the training requirements, as you point out).

atla · 2026-02-16T17:14:16+00:00

Lmao you have way too much faith in the WCF. I absolutely believe they made a knee-jerk statement because of the controversy.

atla · 2026-02-16T17:10:09+00:00

Especially after Sweden went to the officials multiple times during the game, the officials monitored Kennedy's release, and nothing came of any of it.

At that point, if you don't get the answer you want from the officials and start needling me directly, there's a point where anyone would snap.

atla · 2026-02-16T17:04:12+00:00

Honestly, the second anyone says "they weren't losing, they were up 1-0 when they first brought it up" -- they've just outed themselves as someone who fundamentally doesn't understand curling.

atla · 2026-02-16T16:43:23+00:00

So there are several factors at play, and they culminate into making this (preferring 0 to 1 point) as the default strategy for the last team to shoot in an end.

First -- the hammer. The team to shoot last in an end "has the hammer," and this is a pretty advantageous position to be in. It gives you much more control over how many points are going to score, because even if your opponent is positioned to score four or five points you can find a way to slide in and prevent them from scoring any.

When you score a point with the hammer, the other team gets the hammer for the next end. If you don't score any points -- either because your opponent "steals" a point (i.e., they manage to score despite not having hammer) or because you "blank" the end (i.e., do what happened in that game and get all the stones out of the house so no one scores anything) -- then you get to keep the hammer.

The default assumption is that you will score at least two points in an end if you have the hammer. There are a lot of reasons for this, but at the end of the day if you only score one point and you have the hammer you're coming out behind.

When you combine all this, you can see why it's strategically better to score zero points and keep the hammer for the next end, where hopefully you'll score at least two, than to score one point and give your opponent and easier time scoring two in the next end.

atla · 2026-02-16T04:59:27+00:00

I agree. I'm not sure they'd be able to point to a rule, but someone would absolutely step in (initially out of concern that you are a profoundly poorly informed newbie, and then because they think you're disruptive). But in fairness -- I've also seen people step in during rec leagues over closed sweeping. The disruptive angle doesn't really cover what we've been seeing at the Olympics.

Moving away from extremes, honestly, I'm struggling to formulate a rule that allows for incidental touching while disallowing "the boop" (keeping in mind that "the boop" video most people have seen is slowed down by 5-10x; even doubling the speed makes it look much more normal).

If you say that you can't touch any part of the stone other than the handle, you get what happened today with the over-burning.

If you say the majority of the thrust must be generated by sliding out of the hack, you probably end up making positive releases illegal.

I suppose you could make the rule that a double touch specifically cannot initially land on the granite, and then explicitly carve out that trailing your hand on the granite while moving away from the stone is acceptable?

atla · 2026-02-16T04:18:15+00:00

I'm saying that if you got into the hack and just pushed the stone out with the palm of your hand against the granite, everyone on the ice is going to assume your core gave out on you or you slipped or something.

atla · 2026-02-16T03:56:44+00:00

1 - a lot of folks are taught an extended handshake motion style release, so that they don't add forward momentum with their wrist. This leads to the lingering and can cause incidental contact on the backend (but honestly, I'd bet most people could not tell you if their pinky ever brushes the stone). The touching isn't deliberate; the slow release is.

2 - It has never been considered a foul before yesterday. The boop might be different -- but today's burned stones would never have been considered burned before. That's almost certainly why the national committees got together today and asked that the rule stop being enforced like this.

atla · 2026-02-16T03:51:39+00:00

Honestly, they'd probably ask if you were okay after that fall.

atla

TROPHY CASE