> To this end, the trustees have delegated authority to the provost, working with deans of all academic colleges, to develop and to review and update continuously, discipline-specific criteria and proficiency standards for a new campuswide “artificial intelligence working competency” graduation requirement for all Purdue main campus students, starting with new beginners in fall 2026.
So the Purdue trustees have "delegated authority" to people at the University to make a new graduation requirement for 2026.
I guess they would already have had that authority?
I think it would be the ongoing job of the dean's or at least someone to be setting graduation requirements? Why would the trustees have to explicitly delegate it?
I think this was more of a press release than an edict. The Purdue announcement says, "Built on recently launched AI majors, minors and certificates across colleges, and following the establishment of a working group last summer, with additional careful deliberation and advice from the University Senate through its Undergraduate Curriculum Council..."
I am guessing it's not that they wanted the money. They thought there was something illegal happening and seized the money. I.e. not for themselves but for whatever law enforcement agency they thought might come looking for it.
If we continue giving money to people who build malware into the products, the malware will eventually be baked in deeply enough that the rest of the device will refuse to operate if it can't phone home to the ministry of truth or wherever.
Offline smart TVs are great. As long as they support wake over CEC, they are close enough to a dumb display connected to an Apple TV.
I let my latest LG TV on the network, but block internet access at the router. HomeKit integration (Siri turn off tv), Chromecast, Airplay, and other local services all work, without the ability for it to phone home.
I feel like there's a bit of a jump from "tech-savvy" to de-soldering things on an expensive piece of home electronics. As it stands now, though, I agree that turning off the smart TV features seems to be the way to go for most people.
I just want a panel. I’m already doing what the article suggests (running a Hisense offline with a media box), but my TV still crashes a few times a month and needs to be power-cycled/takes about a minute to reboot.
There’s just no reason for this. You have one job: Take my signal and display it. Anything else is just another place for things to go wrong.
there hasn't been any open wifi networks around me in over a decade and i live in a decently populated area. that's not a thing any more unless you're at a place of business and even then it's rare.
> And here's what I've been circling around: I think the only reason any of this is true is because of death. Without that horizon, we could defer everything indefinitely. Why start the difficult journey today when you have infinite tomorrows? Just as you "remember your death" to really live life, perhaps we need the deadline to do the work at all. Death is what pulls us out of pure consumption and into pursuit. You could call it "just a deadline", but I disagree. It's what makes us begin.
I'm not sure it's transparently bad that we could defer everything indefinitely. Why would that matter? Also, it's not certain that we would. Perhaps we would get very bored and then be spurred to action.
> The United States is short 4 million housing units, with a particular dearth of starter homes, moderately priced apartments in low-rises, and family-friendly dwellings
> Missing Households. Households that may not have formed due to lack of availability and affordability, e.g. households with children over 18 years of age still living with their parents or individuals or couples living together as roommates at levels exceeding historical norms.
Did you intend to add something after the definition? For better or worse, "moving out once you reach 18" is widespread enough of an expectation that it can be used as a yardstick for housing shortage.
I think it's interesting how "shortage" is defined across different products.
From an economics standpoint, "shortage" isn't a useful word, unless it's applied in the extremely unlikely scenario where there nothing is available at any price. Generally, this is because price dictates supply.
"Shortage" for the current housing market is generally used to mean, "relative to historic trends, many people want houses who can't afford the current prices."
Shortage in the absence of price controls generally means that something is inhibiting supply from increasing as demand does, causing increased demand to have the primary result of increasing prices rather than increasing production.
Sometimes this is expected or unavoidable, e.g. if you have a sudden increase in the demand for electricity then the price will increase temporarily until new power generation or transmission capacity can be brought online, and in the meantime you have a shortage.
The problem comes when the shortage is a result of artificial scarcity as it is with housing/zoning, because then it's not temporary, it persists until the cause of the artificial scarcity is defeated.
Shortage is almost always used with a hidden assumption that the current price is "bad."
Truckers are currently retiring faster than they're being replaced. So some folks are saying there's going to be a "trucker shortage." In reality, there are plenty of people out there who could get a CDL license and drive a truck, but don't. Why? Because the compensation for being a trucker isn't high enough because the demand isn't high enough.
For housing, from the house seller's point of view, they could have the viewpoint that there are far too many houses for sale, the supply is too high, they want a higher price for their house. And from the buyer's point of view, there aren't enough houses because they want to pay a lower price.
I'm not saying either side is right/wrong or good/bad. It's just that "shortage" isn't a very useful word.
> For housing, from the house seller's point of view, they could have the viewpoint that there are far too many houses for sale, the supply is too high, they want a higher price for their house. And from the buyer's point of view, there aren't enough houses because they want to pay a lower price.
And who is right is then determined by the market, because "not enough" means "the price is higher than the cost of creating more" at which point the market creates more. Unless the government is suppressing the ordinary market through rules imposing artificial scarcity, which is the evil to be prevented.
It's more like "relative to historic trends, many people want houses [in desirable areas] who can't afford the current prices."
Building tons of new houses outside of the hot areas that all these people want to live would still elicit cries of a shortage and an affordability crisis. Because there are currently affordable places outside of hot areas, but not very many takers.
It's a really tough nut to crack. Because how do you reorient the demand to those areas that have the supply? It's not easy. We can't seem to do it currently, and there's no real plan to do it if even if we could somehow build even more housing. We'd have to build lots of housing only in hot areas. Which sounds easy enough until you realize the economics don't make sense and even on the off chance that you could, it would only generate more demand.
First order of business however should be to find a clever way to stop abuses like the ones outlined in the article. The housing that would free up in the hot areas would not be near enough to meet the demand, but if we stop that nonsense at least we're not "digging the hole deeper" so to speak.
Exactly this. There's something about housing which causes so many people to think its an easy thing to solve by just building more and that's not actually true
Or find ways to create jobs in places 3 hours away and distribute the population better like we used to do, in addition to trying to increase build out rates
> Because how do you reorient the demand to those areas that have the supply? It's not easy. We can't seem to do it currently, and there's no real plan to do it if even if we could somehow build even more housing.
Uh have you heard of telework? I am sure that both federal and state governments could incentivize companies to offer telework instead of some forced RTO situation.
reply