there's probably a version of the myth for each. you know how the Greeks kinda had an established canon for their mythology? Egyptians did not lmao, there are very few (if any at all tbf) constants in their religion and the 3000 years of an Empire has produces many different versions of the state standard, and that's to not even mention the stuff nobody wrote down.
bonus fun fact! in some versions of the infamous cum salad myth Thoth creates a solar disk made out of Horus's cum that gets summoned from Set's body at the trial. next time you look at Thoth know that his hat is made of cum
there is also a goddess who is a brick, she has a human face and the rest is a brick :)
he's like 1/8 or 1/16 native, so despite being far removed from indigenous people and culture white americans have a tendency to see any claim to cultural heritage as valid, so the outrage wasn't as big as normal
i am perfectly aware of that, but if you only want to view the .webp file outside of your browser, you don't need to convert it properly, just rename the extansion
.webp has virtually no support when it comes to software/apps that can edit images, it's always either a "file format not supported", or absolutely no reaction or acknowledgement that you tried doing something
my best idea would be going old school with in person written & oral testing, since clearly nothing digital is of any help anymore. or perhaps require multiple digital WIP versions to be submitted? would also be getting the students into a good habit of making backups of their work. or maybe every essay should come with a director's commentary (a more loose style reflective essay on the research and work done)
o.o holy shit- i mean that's a valid move, using AI for a handwritten piece sounds like a pain in the ass, but so does just writing 10 pages by hand, AI or not!
i'm glad i got through my higher education marginally before the AI boom hit (i graduated 3 years ago). i only had Turnitin yell "PLAGIARISM???" at me when i used a common phrase that another student used at some point somewhere (think - "The research suggests...", or sometimes even the page numbers), good times good times
sure maybe it was tested with data already known to the researchers, but that's not a real world test, that's still a fully controlled environment. and the researchers, being human, aren't perfect, the data about what the AI was meant to predict could've slipped into the training data. using historic data to predict slightly less historic data is a good first step, and it's of course exciting! but we're not done here
nobody can read AI code after its been trained, so until all possibility of human error can be fully disspelled by continuous testing it in real time and having the AI actually predict events that come to be - it's a could, not a can.
"can" and not "could"? you haven't had a chance to test it yet but already claim to have invented a machine that can predict the future a decade in advance? it better be the journalists that picked that word because if the scientists are saying that, then their funding would do better somewhere else
and honestly, even if it is a simulation, so what? do you have a way to get out? can you even exist outside of it? do you hurt or love any less knowing that? what are you supposed to do about it? give up? lay your simulation body on the simulation dirt and simulation die?
none of it really matters does it, especially because you can't know if it's possible to leave/exist outside. as far as you know this life is still the only thing that is certain
are you like, telling is to write a story with those themes? bro you go do it, clearly you have a specific idea in mind