> more importantly I do think that students need to learn responsible use of these technologies anyway.
But you're not doing that, you've just given up and allowed any use!
> How to use AI coding agents effectively is not a learning goal
Exactly
> violate evidence-based best pedagogy practices, and I made them anyway.
Of course you have, when have educators cared much about best practices
> We have since built infrastructure to autograde code and written reports of homework with LLMs (institutionally approved LLMs)
Further reducing the point of your own existence
> Debriefing after such a failure is a good learning opportunity to talk about automation bias and different forms of human oversight (and how this is really hard in practice).
It would be if there were any learning, but since the incentives are for more AI use and less learning, there will be no application of the supposed learning, so you'll continue to have those 80% fails
> that amount of performance optimisation is usually not warranted at this scale.
Indeed, you need to waste a few years hurting user experience before investing a few years into migration and writing another "improved performance" blog post.
> that engineers should drop everything and work overtime on optimizing performance
The opposite, they should work less instead of more doing a worse job that results in scraping all their output later in a redesign
Unfortunately the original blog post introducing the great CSS-in-JS system being removed is not in the "Related posts" section, would be nice to compare the thinking in the two
Of course people would complain, it's unrealistic to expect everyone to have the same expectation of what a fair fee is that somehow exactly matches the current fee (even if the service is great)
I don’t have the data to answer your question. But I’d like to point out that it has little to do with my assertions. Note in particular the word “conveys”.
The word doesn't help without specifying the set of intents you meant.
But in general that would also be a mistaken post-hoc rationalization of the state of an ecosystem.
The "author's intent" could just be "I just want to fit the requirement". And the publisher's intent could just be "I don't want to change". None of which is about the deficiency of alternative formats re. "conveying [supposedly design] intent"
And PDF is an abomination because of the awful way it implements the "intent preservation"
reply