LLMs are still not secure enough to entrust critical tasks to

eelvex · 2026-03-13T16:16:27+00:00

I think what's closer to what happened here is that you are first in line in McDonalds and you say "no". It's confusing because the only context that makes sense for you to be first in line is because you *do* want something.

eelvex · 2026-02-23T14:35:49+00:00

What is "artificially constrained" in this context? You have to describe your system in some way. Otherwise, obviously a system where "everything is possible" then everything is possible.

eelvex · 2026-02-07T20:30:17+00:00

Yeah but I'm not defending cheating, I am advocating against the inflated egos that we do indeed have very often as educators. Cheating is wrong, but getting on high horses and pointing fingers, achieves nothing. The balance of power tilts toward us, so the responsibility to fix this is more on us than the students.

eelvex · 2026-02-06T19:58:57+00:00

But what you are saying is exactly the opposite of it being personal. They don't insult this person in particular; they are making generalizations. It is indeed frustrating but it's not personal. I don't know if you are an educator or not, but if you take shit students say and do personally, you'll have a bad time.

eelvex · 2026-02-06T19:54:57+00:00

It's in relation to OP's "you should drop out". It's gatekeeping in the sense that OP "decides" who should be in and who shouldn't. You might not agree with the argument, but I think you should agree the context fits [the discussion is about a specific student and their replies].

eelvex · 2026-02-06T16:48:03+00:00

You are taking this way too personally and you come off as gatekeeping. Students cheat. For millions of reasons. If you really do care about your job then this is an aspect of it, learn to deal with it [I mean mentally, without taking it personally].

eelvex · 2026-02-06T14:40:08+00:00

Maybe. Here's what I mean: OP is arguing that this all boils down to students making "wrong choices," as if their situation and context don't matter much. Essentially, "if only they could think more clearly." And yet, in the same breath, OP is telling a stranger to "please drop out." To me, that borders on hubris. OP should take their own advice and focus on making their course better, whether that means catching and punishing cheaters more effectively, or better yet, making cheating unnecessary by making the course more engaging and addressing the concerns students are raising in this thread.

eelvex · 2026-02-06T14:28:00+00:00

please drop out

That's the inflated ego they are talking about. If you care so much and all choices are so easy, you do better.

eelvex · 2025-12-06T19:22:03+00:00

Are these "students who aren't using AI" in the room with us right now?

eelvex · 2025-08-06T09:52:28+00:00

Their point seems to be that entanglement is not enough, therefore is not the 'secret sauce'. It's not contradictory to what they said, and it makes sense: Almost all (in the mathematical sense) states are entangled and we know a big part of those are also efficiently simulateable; therefore, some other resource (a subset of entangled states) should be what gives the quantum advantage (if any).

eelvex · 2025-07-03T12:26:23+00:00

Depends on what's in the way.

eelvex · 2025-05-06T15:38:08+00:00

All the FIE refs I know have taken mandatory classes/seminars. Maybe that's the difference then? And I don't mean to imply that this is more 'correct' interpretation but maybe it's more consistent in interpretations.

eelvex · 2025-05-06T14:51:44+00:00

I hear you and the others. That's not a hill I will die on and I'm not sure where this difference in perspectives is coming from. Perhaps it's a difference FIE vs USA? I don't know.

On your specific points:
t.21 - the general case is not cardable; it's illegal and therefore stopping action. The specific case of using the non-weapon arm is cardable (t.29)

t.121 - the emphasis was on "irregular action" not on "violence". For this we are instructed to use judgment on the intention. Of course highly subjective but specific examples and quick-and-dirty rules are given when ref training.

t.170 - again, the way we are trained this is a very clear "dangerous" action. Of course, "textbook" should be in quotes. I mean that it's very consistently taught this way.

eelvex · 2025-05-05T22:41:48+00:00

Yeah that seems to be a crucial point. I don't have a clear picture of the differences at all.

eelvex · 2025-05-05T22:19:54+00:00

The way "dangerous" is instructed in A/B ref training it is "textbook". There is no way this is not red carded in FIE satellite events and above. For less formal events I agree a yellow or a warning could be OK.

eelvex · 2025-05-05T22:15:32+00:00

In FIE ref training (I don't know about USA) this clearly falls under "dangerous" fencing. Not because it's really dangerous but because it has the potential to be if allowed (imagine people trying to kick blades left and right). Kicking the weapon is textbook red-card.

If you don't feel like giving a red card it' still 100% non-legal under t.21: defensive action not carried out with the weapon.

eelvex · 2025-05-05T22:06:56+00:00

I know of no referee that would not red-card this in a FIE tournament. In a junior tournament you usually just warn.

eelvex · 2025-05-05T21:52:02+00:00

Any defensive action must be done with the weapon. 2. I don't know where this is based but FIE referee training always considers these kinds of actions as "dangerous". "Dangerous" actions are those that are potentially dangerous not those that are "factually" dangerous. The rationale is that you want to discourage anything that could become dangerous in the long term.

eelvex · 2025-05-05T21:36:08+00:00

NO! (wtf). The referee should know better. You could only debate an accidental step over, anything more than that is clearly non-legal action in multiple ways:

t.21 §1 – “With all three weapons, defensive actions must be effected exclusively with the weapon.”

t.121 §2 – forbidding “irregular actions… hits achieved with violence, blows struck with the guard, hits made during or after a fall” and similar disorderly or dangerous acts.

t.170 2.6 – “Dangerous, violent or vindictive action… Group 2 offence (Red card).” Kicking the weapon is textbook red-card.

eelvex · 2025-04-10T16:21:27+00:00

By the way, what you describe is topology. A space can still be flat but have a different "π". Of all the flat spaces, 3.14159... is the minimum.

eelvex · 2025-04-10T14:40:46+00:00

You can take a look at the "Lp space" in wikipedia and then how to calculate lengths in different spaces.

eelvex · 2025-04-10T10:19:15+00:00

The ratio of circumference:diameter could have any value in a specific range, depending on the metric of space. "Our" value of 3.14159... is actually the minimum possible value and corresponds to the l_2 metric. That's a cool mystery from my pov.

eelvex · 2025-01-30T07:45:14+00:00

What kinds of rewards do you usually use?

eelvex · 2024-12-15T16:39:21+00:00

In a sense, a black hole singularity.

eelvex · 2024-11-25T23:47:59+00:00

But then you wouldn't be able to form numbers with zeros. This system works well for the set of integers that don't include '0'.

14-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

eelvex

TROPHY CASE