It's google's b2b offering (suite of tools including gmail, google docs, drive etc). It's an Office 365 competitor and changed name more times than I can remember. GSuite, Google Apps, Google Apps for Work, Google Apps for Business...
Yes, I missed the student using the teacher's trust in those tools to make them even more angry and neuter their angry email that they (probably) actually wrote themselves. Well-played.
I realize you might have failed to comprehend the level of my argument. It wasn't even about LLMs in particular, rather having someone/something else do your work for you. I read it as the student criticizing the teacher for not writing his own emails, since the teacher criticizes the students for not writing their own classwork. Whether it's an LLM or them hiring someone else to do the writing, this is what my rebuttal applied to. I saw what I thought was flawed reasoning and wanted to correct it. I hope it's clear why a student using an LLM (or another person) to write classwork is far more than a quality issue, whereas someone not being tested/graded using an LLM to prepare written material is "merely" a quality issue (and the personal choice to atrophy their mental fitness).
I don't think I was arguing for LLMs. I wish nobody used them. But the argument against a student using it for assignments is significantly different than that against people in general using them. It's similar to using a calculator or asking someone else for the answer: fine normally but not if the goal is to demonstrate that you learned/know something.
I admit I missed the joke. I read it as the usual "you hypocrite teacher, you don't want us using tools but you use them" argument I see. There's no need to be condescending towards me for that. I see now that the "joke" was about the unreliability of AI checkers and making the teacher really angry by suggesting that their impassioned email wasn't even their writing, bolstered by their insistence that checkers are reliable.
Two posts from you addressing a one-line reply? May be time to put down the coffee and take a drag from the mood-altering-substance of your preference.
> I stand corrected. Still, as you say, less point in it since it breaks their security model.
It breaks the entire point of the security model on ALL android devices. It isnt recommended on any Android distribution. It doesnt matter if its LOS or GOS
Not having root prevents me from taking proper backups that include app data, it prevents me from using Aegis to import TOTP codes from Authy. I get that on some abstract level it is more "secure" from any malicious software that might find its way onto the device, but the practical upshot is largely obstructing the user from using the system.
Have you ever had to work on a locked-down machine at an office? I don't need Google or Graphene to play IT department for me.
As I'm sure you're aware, SeedVault won't backup app data if the app authors have opted out of it. Again, this is an example of a system serving masters other than the device's owner.
they do read my mind at least to some extent -> "The paper concludes that it is possible to detect changes in the thickness and the properties of the muscle solely by evaluating the reflection coefficient of an antenna structure." https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6711930
I think anyone can be a hacker. Anyone can break any laws. But to kill yourself over it? It's in the extreme. I don't believe law enforcement has to take the blame for that.
