Tildes is a very serious site, where we discuss very serious matters like websites.niche, consumerism and association of research libraries and public knowledge. Tags culled from the highest voted topics from the last seven days, if anyone loves this kinda thing.

But one of my favourite tags happens to be offbeat! Taking its original inspiration from Sir Nils Olav III, this thread is looking for any far-fetched offbeat stories lurking in the newspapers. It may not deserve its own post, but it deserves a wider audience!

TL;DR: I’m interested in your thoughts about this the current problems in UK higher education, and how they can be fixed.

I recently read an opinion piece in the Guardian about the problems currently faced by UK universities and their students. These problems aren’t new, but they’re getting worse year by year, and Simon articulates them particularly well.

It seems to me that there are three main criticisms of our current university system: that it is too costly for students while failing to fund the universities adequately; that degrees do not provide enough value to students; and that there are too many students attending university, especially (so-called) “low value” degrees, but increasingly also “high value” areas such as STEM.

The main solutions being presented are replacing students loans with a “graduate tax”, shuttering low-quality institutions and degrees, and sending more students to apprenticeships or trade schools rather than universities.

My view on this, as someone who has recently graduated university, and will be returning next year to begin studying for a PhD, is conflicted. I can definitely see that these problems are real, but I’m not convinced by the solutions being offered.

Firstly, I don’t think most people discussing these issues and offering their solutions are addressing the most fundamental problem, which is that universities have forgotten how to, or simply stopped, actually teaching. Many degrees only teach you what you need to know to pass the exams and produce acceptable coursework, which is not the point of a university degree.

This is a very challenging issue, because obviously universities must assess their students. But the purpose of a degree, its value, lies not in the assessment, nor even in the certificate awarded upon its completion (despite what many people believe), but in how you can learn and grow to have a deeper and more rounded understanding of your degree area, and the world at large. A university degree should make you a more curious person and build your critical thinking, enabling you to think through and approach many problems intelligently. But instead universities are continuously lowering the bar necessary to pass, because failing students is too costly for them, and thus also lowering their teaching standards.

The problem, it seems to me, is that the purpose of university is to educate, yet many who graduate university do not display the level of education, understanding and intelligence we would expect them to have achieved after investing at least three years of their life and tens of thousands of pounds in their education. This is not a crisis of too many students, but of a lack of quality in teaching. It seems to me that this has been driven by the funding model, which incentivises universities to grow their cohort size in order to receive more funding. Of course, this makes it harder to teach them all, and thus promotes the lowering of assessment standards so that students of sub-par quality - whether it be their work ethic, prior education, or simply learning at university that lacks - can graduate successfully.

If this is our problem, then I don’t think any of the proposed solutions serve to ameliorate it. This problem is equally common to humanities as it is STEM subjects, so the issue is not in students studying in “low value” degree areas. Whilst an apprenticeship might provide better value to a student in terms of the skills they would acquire, it is addressing a different goal and need to a university education. And while a graduate tax might be fairer than our current loan system (which favour high earners who can pay the loan off faster), it would not solve the currently perverse financial incentives universities are subject to.

The solution to this is obvious, but a hard sell. It is necessary to remove the financial incentive for universities to grow their cohort sizes. It seems to me that we must either fix, or at least cap, the funding universities receive, such that it does not grow with larger student bodies. Perhaps it should instead be linked to some performance metric, or maybe the faculty size - the more lecturers and other teaching staff the university employs, the better its funding. Of course, a complete solution to this will require a lot of thought and nuance, but I think it’s clear that the basic issue is the funding model.

The value to be gained (as a society) from a well educated population is massive, but we are currently selling hopeful high school students up the river with underwhelming university degrees that don’t educate them properly. I believe it’s the wrong answer to say that these students should give up on their dreams of a university education. We need to fix the funding model so that universities are incentivised to provide as high quality teaching as possible, not to provide the lowest level acceptable to as many students as possible.

What have you been watching and reading this week? You don't need to give us a whole essay if you don't want to, but please write something! Feel free to talk about something you saw that was cool, something that was bad, ask for recommendations, or anything else you can think of.

If you want to, feel free to find the thing you're talking about and link to its pages on Anilist, MAL, or any other database you use!

For the past year, I've finally been able to have a strong, lasting, cleaning routine. It took me my whole life, but I was never able to go past my own argument of "who cares"? Who cares if the dishes aren't done? If the laundry isn't folded? Only I can judge me. It doesn't matter, ultimately.

But silently, I wasn't happy with that, and I've known I wasn't happy for years, kinda like an addict saying he'll stop but he never does.

One day earlier this year, during winter, while on a good cleaning day, I took some time to look at my old notebooks from college. I remembered a page I had written during some off-time on an internship. I had written a full page of the same line: "I like it when...". I had wanted to just do some introspection and list every thing I liked that came to mind. Stuff like "I like it when I eat pizza", "I like it when I play boardgames with my friend", etc.

Those notes were five years old, you know what was the very first thing on the page? That's right: "I like it when my apartment is clean"

It hit me like a fucking brick. I almost cried right there.

From then on, it was over. The cleaning me had won over the lazy me and I've since been able to keep a clean apartment :)

So, what's your story? How did you overcome a challenge in your life?

Kingmaker was last night. Some minor spoilers to follow.

Party, Level 3

• Marisiel, Elf Witch
• Nok-Nok, Goblin Rogue
• Linzi, Halfling Bard
• Amiri, Human Barbarian
• Titus, Human Fighter
• Valerie, Human Fighter
• Stik, Kobold Monk

Variants in Play: Ancestry Paragon, Free Archetype, Gradual Ability Boosts, Slow Leveling, Stamina. I also allow Hero Points to adjust the degree of success on a check by one step rather than re-roll; this primarily gets used to either mitigate a crit fail or turn a failure into a success.

Realizing they had just under a week before the Stag Lord's bandits tried to strong-arm Oleg's Trading Post for goods again, the party stopped their trip towards the tatzlwyrm lair and immediately turned around to return to Oleg's to stock up and then head towards the fort.

On the way back, they encountered yet more bandits and, on one evening, an owlbear and its mate. Once at Oleg's, they spent a day turning in their quests and buying some of the goods available at the trading post. When ready, they set out. About twelve miles from the fort, they were about to start cooking dinner when some of the Stag Lord's bandits showed up in a neutral manner, presuming the party to be aspiring recruits. Linzi takes the opportunity to try and get some information out of them by indulging their fantasy.

Titus eventually gets bored and challenges one of the bandits to a duel. The bandit rightfully declines, but Titus begins pushing forward with intent to attack him anyways. Linzi threatened to force him to spend his night in a laughing fit to get him to back off, and he calmed down. Unfortunately, after dinner was taken care of, the bandits took their leave, not wanting to be shanked in the night by the crazy man.

The next morning they stop a few hundred feet from the fort and Marisiel sends her familiar, Youmu, forward to scout the hills since the bandits don't seem to be paying them much mind. Youmu returns shortly and informs Marisiel that something's off about the hill; he suspects undead. Armed with that information, the party decided to waltz up to the front door and just infiltrate by providing the password.

Once inside, introductions are made, stories are shared, and after the party learns that there's a late shipment of alcohol and the Stag Lord loves the stuff, Stik taps into their knowledge of alchemy (via dedication) to create a bottle of booze. The Stag Lord quickly comes out and snatches the bottle before returning to his chamber.

Stik is quickly inducted as the brewmeister, but instead of delivering alcohol to the other bandits, they deliver lightning. In a bottle. One Extreme encounter later (as they triggered the entire compound, including the Stag Lord, and the owlbear was let free at some point), the Stag Lord lies dead on the ground along with most of his lieutenants.

Refresher about me and my work: I work in higher ed as essentially a social worker for our on-campus students. Many of the students I support are trans, non-binary, and queer. They often come to me or are directed to me because I'm visibly queer, and use she/they pronouns. A recent survey* listed about 30% of our campus populations as queer (ace-inclusive, not mentioning gender identity), the same survey demonstrated nearly double the risk of suicide, mental health crisis, etc among our trans and gender non-conforming students. This survey was from before the 2024 election.

My point with this post is asking y'all for any suggestions in supporting my trans youth in particular and queer youth in general during this time of increasing demonization and as the feds have started to pressure schools to remove protections for trans women specifically.**

What things would you have wanted to hear from adults around you? What things helped you continue to feel safe with trusted adults? When the conversations keep getting tougher - talking about staying in or returning to the closet for safety or surviving that necessity when at home, or whatever fresh political hell hits next? When your roommate's mom compares her daughter living with you to sexual violence?

I have a lot of experience with tough questions, and dealt some of these. I've talked about how you have to take care of yourself and water your plants or you have dead plants and fascism. But my experiences coming out in grad school and figuring out my demi-gender-ness much later aren't the same as these kids' life experiences. And I always want to make sure I'm doing better. What helped you? What would you have wanted to hear? What message would you want to pass to them?

Feel free to DM if preferred for safety or privacy

*I can't say how representative this was but between 4 and 5 percent of the population took the survey so unless that was particularly skewed in some way that should be a decent sample.
** There's a chance my speech will be restricted as an employee, we'll see, but that's an area I can fight more effectively.

I’m curious to get a read of where people’s heads are at regarding defence - be it innovation, funding or working in it in general (in particular in Europe but please contextualise with your country if you’re commenting).

Still five years ago, most people’s view was rather negative on it. I’ve seen attitude change significantly but I’d love hear opinions.

This is always weighing on my mind and is coming after this comment I wrote.

The tech sector, especially the hyper-online portion of it, is full of devs who were doing some random shit before and shifted to AI the past few years. Don't get me wrong, I'm one of those: In much the same way, very shortly after the release of ChatGPT, I completely changed my own business as well (and now lead an AI R&D lab). Sure I had plenty of ML/AI experience before, but the sector was completely different and that experience has practically no impact aside from some fundamentals today.

The thing is, LLMs are all in all very new, few people have an active interest into "how it all works", and most of the sector's interest is in the prompting and chaining layers. Imagine network engineering and website design being bagged into the same category of "Internet Worker". Not really useful.

Some reflexions on the state of the business world right now...

In most SMEs, complete ignorance of what is possible beyond a budding interest in AI. Of course, they use ChatGPT and they see their social media posts are easier to write, so they fire some marketing consultants. Some find some of the more involved tools that automate this-and-that, and it usually stops there.

In many large companies: Complete and utter panic. Leaders shoving AI left and right as if it's a binary yes-ai/no-ai to toggle in their product or internal tools, and hitting the yes-ai switch will ensure they survive. Most of these companies are fuuuuuucked. They survive on entropy, and the world has gotten a LOT faster. Survival is going to get much harder for them unless they have a crazy moat. (Bullish on hardware and deeply-embedded knowledge; Bearish on SaaS and blind-spend; Would short Palantir today if I could)

In labs just like mine: I see plenty of knowledgeable people with no idea of how far-reaching the impact of the work is. Super technical AI people get biased by their own knowledge of the flaws and limitations so as to be blind to what is possible.

And in tech entrepreneurship, I see a gap forming between techies who have no respect for "vibe coders" on the grounds that they're not real programmers, and who don't end up using AI and fall massively behind since execution (not code quality) is everything. And at the same time I see vibe coders with zero technical prowess get oversold on the packaging, and who end up building dead shells and are unable to move past the MVP stage of whatever they're building.

And the more capable the tool you're using is, the more the experience can be SO WILDLY DIFFERENT depending on usage and configuration. I've seen Claude Code causing productivity LOSSES as well as creating productivity gains of up to 1000x -- and no, this isn't hearsay, these numbers are coming from my own experience on both ends of the spectrum, with different projects and configurations.
With such massively different experiences possible, and incredibly broad labels, of course the discussion on "AI" is all over the place. Idiocy gets funded on FOMO, products built and shut down within weeks, regulators freaking out and rushing meaningless laws that have no positive impact, it's just an unending mess.

Because it's such a mess I see naysayers who can only see those negatives and who are convinced AI is a bubble just like that "internet fad of the 90s". Or worse, that it has zero positive impact on humanity. I know there's some of those on Tildes - if that's you, hello, you're provably already wrong and I'd be happy to have that discussion.

Oh and meanwhile, Siri still has the braindead cognition of a POTUS sedated with horse tranquilizer. This, not ChatGPT, is the most-immediately-accessible AI in a quarter of the western world's pocket. Apple will probably give up, buy Perplexity, and continue its slow decline. Wonder who'll replace them.

About 45 mins ago, I read that a live-action Hollywood adaptation of Akira has been in the works for more than 20 years, and it was apparently about to move forward.

About 30 mins ago, I read that the rights have lapsed so it's pretty much dead in the water. However, it looks like there was always skepticism for an American version, long before anyone thought to put Scarlett Johansson in Ghost in the Shell.

About 15 mins ago, I learned that Spike Lee's Highest 2 Lowest is about to be released this weekend. It's apparently a "reinterpretation" of Kurosawa's High and Low, which I've been meaning to watch but never looked up the trailer to until 10 mins ago. That made me think about how inherent Japanese-ness might be to Kurosawa's work - the pacing, the emotional tension bubbling under the surface, the unspoken contexts - and how much of that is translatable or indeed replaceable. (Also it made me compare the track records of the Akira Kurosawa+Tohiro Mifune combo to Spike Lee+Denzel Washington)

All of that made me arrive at this question - how many worthwhile remakes have there ever really been, whether or not they crossed cultures? I suspect the ratio of bad/mediocre to good/great is weighted heavily to the former. I know of a few famous examples (The Magnificent Seven, A Fistful of Dollars) but I'm counting on you film buffs to broaden my horizons here.

For the purpose of this thread, I want to exclude movies that are second-attempt adaptations of a previously existing IP (e.g. Dune 2021 vs. Dune 1984), unless you feel it specifically aimed to be a remake of the first movie.