Are you sure? The privacy policy says “This site is hosted on GitHub Pages by GitHub, Inc. (USA). When you visit, GitHub logs your IP address for security purposes (Art. 6 (1) (f) GDPR: our legitimate interest in a secure, working website). The site cannot be delivered without it. GitHub keeps these logs as long as it needs them for security and publishes no fixed period. GitHub takes part in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework; see the GitHub Privacy Statement.” I think the server itself may actually be GitHub somehow?

I agree with this. I like AI and really don’t like people labeling anything AI-created as slop. But in order for something to not be AI slop, the developer needs to review the output and provide feedback to the model. If this is “draft 1” of the content and the dev only reviewed parts of it, I understand dev’s excitement and wanting others to see it, but it seems like dev should be beta testing draft 1 with the model and doing some revisions before asking others to check it out.

Because some of the phrasing is unclear enough in its explanations that a typical person might not be able to follow it. And I feel like if dev had read more of it, dev probably would have noticed that…

How can it not be on a server? Does that mean github hosts it and you just own the domain? (I am reading your privacy policy.)

So it involves both Github and Cloudflare, which means really not only is an IP being logged, but also other things like packet latency, mtu, packet header characteristics, and an overall network fingerprint.

This is also the same Microsoft that helped use Microsoft Azure servers for various war activity, so this does mean data about anyone marginalized who uses this will be captured and used however… Most people don’t care about data privacy, but still it isn’t ideal.

It doesn’t look like you’re a moderator, according to the sidebar. How would you be able to remove it if you wanted to do that? I am not being snarky. Genuinely I’m confused.

I agree with you that the biggest weakness of the project is there isn’t enough clarification of conceptual topics and there’s no place to get more info on things. There’s a suggest an improvement flag also, but it’s in a strange place (not near the topic/question) so it’s a bit unintuitive for suggesting the conceptual explanations are weak.

But I also think that if the person who made this project wanted to try to correct that, they probably could. I hope the developer answers some of your questions. I think the “What are the chances you’ll abandon this project?” is a valid question. Because this project needs work to be more user-friendly and if people give feedback and it doesn’t end up being implemented, then the people giving feedback were wasting their time.

Impovrished people are exactly the sort of people who may need an open source educational tool to get ahead. Lots of people are impovrished.

I like it! But I probably wouldn’t use it right now because I’m studying other things.

I did test it briefly.

My experience was that for subjects I understood already, I could do the tests and follow along easily.

Then I tried Electrochemistry & Batteries.

So a few things. First of all, I can’t easily go back and see the work I previously did, so I am doing this from memory. I could go back with a reset. I’m not sure if that’s a good user experience that I can’t go back to review previous ideas and concepts.

Oh wait, now I am looking at the course and it started over. I didn’t ask it to reset my progress. Hmm. That may be a bug?

One thing I didn’t like is that if I didn’t understand a concept, I couldn’t easily get more information on it or additional help.

For example, in this prelude to a question:

Oxidation numbers

For molecules, chemists track electrons with oxidation numbers: pretend every bond is ionic, giving the shared electrons to the more electronegative atom. Rules of thumb:

free elements: 0; simple ions: their charge, oxygen is usually −2, hydrogen +1 (with non-metals), the numbers add up to the overall charge.

An increase in oxidation number is oxidation; a decrease is reduction.

I was confused by this. I haven’t studied chemical bonds in a long time. I don’t know why I would pretend the bonds are ionic, and I don’t really have memorized which atoms are more electronegative. So I read this and sort of get it, but I’ve also studied this a long time ago…

Now for the question:

Manganese in permanganate What is the oxidation number of manganese in the permanganate ion, MnO4−MnO4−​?

Okay… so we just went over oxidation numbers. I have to pretend there are ionic bonds (I don’t know what that is exactly from memory, I know it’s a type of chemical bonding). And electrons move to the more electronegative atom. Electronegative atoms wasn’t exactly explained clearly here. I don’t really know how to determine if Mn is electronegative. I see O4 has a negative next to it. Is this negatively charged Oxygen? Does that imply negative electrochemical properties?

I didn’t know, guessed, got it wrong, and then saw the answer:

Explanation

x+4(−2)=−1x+4(−2)=−1, so x=+7x=+7, manganese’s highest oxidation state. That’s why permanganate is such a powerful oxidising agent: manganese is hungry for electrons.

This doesn’t make sense to me. I know the previous screen said -2 was often a number associated metal (“oxygen is usually −2”; it also didn’t clearly define what that is. Is that the charge? Is that the oxidation number?)

After that, the next thing is:

Step 5 of 6 Try it Balance a half-equation In acid, purple permanganate is reduced to colourless Mn2+Mn2+. Balance the half-equation: oxygen first (with water), then hydrogen (with H+H+), then charge (with electrons).

I was able to figure out the right answer by trial and error, but I don’t actually conceptually understand this.

So my main feedback is that this may help people who have studied things before or want to look up things on their own, but for people who don’t understand terms or need remedial help on a concept, there’s not really a way to reinforce lessons or clarify topics.

I don’t know if every lesson is like this, but the one thing that could probably help this the most would be something like a button for “I still don’t understand” that has longer explanations, more examples, and more similar problems. I’m somewhat flexible when learning and don’t need to understand everything right away… but I need to be able to get conceptual clarification on something before trying to build on weak conceptual understandings when I’m studying a topic.

I am sure I could step out of the ecosystem and just ask an LLM why I am not understanding certain parts, but that definitely takes me out of the flow.

I am also not trying to re-learn chemistry or batteries right now. (But I’m pretty sure I never learned how lithium ion batteries worked and so if I could have followed this lesson and then learned more about new battery technology, I would have found that interesting. But I had to stop because of conceptual confusion, and I don’t want to take the time to have an LLM fill in the gaps. But for me to use this, I would probably need to be able to log in, have my progress saved, and harder modules might need more links to various terms. I did skip ahead and I know that I could have covered chemical reactions first. I did try part of that module and it felt too easy.

For me, if I wanted to re-learn chemistry right now so I could learn more about science and improve my science abilities, I would likely just have an LLM teach me directly because I think it could just be faster.

For people who might be interested in using this, for example, a teenager who wants to take some community college courses in lab work because they want to become a genetics researcher and they want to pre-learn some of the material so the course will be easier later, I just don’t know if the explanations are long enough or clarify things enough. Those explanations felt really sparse. I like the structure, I like the diagrams and pictures and those are nice. But just for anything slightly harder, there’s no real clarification when there are conceptual misunderstandings.

You could probably create links for terms (like ionic) that help people review what those things are or their definitions. And you could probably create longer deep-dives for people who get a problem wrong or don’t feel comfortable moving on and then it would work better.

Best of luck with this project!

dumb conservative Utah hicks make up special Utah internet rules not even understanding how the internet works.

what a waste of time and resources by a bunch of morons.

I completely agree with you. It’s difficult because defendant with indicted for manslaughter, so the DA would need to request a new grand jury to try to get the charge added. It seems like TCA § 39-13-202 (first) could possibly apply due to a gun being brought and TCA § 39-13-210 (second) could easily apply since it only requires knowledge, not intent to kill. What’s strange about this situation to me is I don’t feel like the appeals court was being transphobic, but it feels like not having the trial include TCA § 39-13-210 (second) is very questionable if he was asked to leave and may either involve transphobia from the DA or the grand jury (and it’s possible the grand jury was given the option for TCA § 39-13-210 and rejected it). I stand by the view that it was procedurally wrong to not allow a defendant to testify about their relationship, including that he liked trans women, his subjective views and concerns, and let a jury decide based on that. I am also not entirely sure if a new indictment can be done and then merged with a remanded case that was remanded for a new trial. I don’t think Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) would apply since he was never charged with murder, this is a fairly difficult technical procedural question. It looks like they possibly can? (State of Tennessee v. Brandon Robert Vandenburg (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019), https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/court-of-criminal-appeals/2019/m2017-01882-cca-r3-cd.html) It may not matter because the DA is unlikely to consider it. I hope they do add charges. If she was telling him to leave, that’s really a low amount of time. I’m not that familiar with Tennessee law.

I think it’s a fair point, and there’s probably not good genuine unbiased studies comparing things like reflex times, aggression levels in confrontations, and other issues.

To me, it seems wrong in a self-defense case (which almost requires a defendant to testify) to not allow a defendant to just talk about what happened. Defendant may have not known if the victim was consistently taking HRT, how long HRT was being used and how often, and more than that, Defendant should just be able to talk about things without his testimony being deemed illegal for saying the wrong thing about an ongoing relationship of a sexual nature. It’s also hard to know with a victim (who is dead) if they were taking HRT consistently.

This was a defendant who clearly was sexually drawn to trans women. The jury is probably going to hate him too if they are bigots and he testifies and juries like to convict.

So let the defendant present their defense and then if that’s what happened, the jury will see it and convict.

Also, I am just realizing now defendant was never even charged with murder. That’s surprising. I would have thought he would have at least been charged with that so the jury could weight it.

It’s not a trans panic case if defendant was fucking trans woman over and over and over again. This is not a situation where defendant suddenly discovered the victim was trans.

Kayla Gore, executive director of the emergency services nonprofit My Sistah’s House, told Erin in the Morning that Ward had pursued trans women in the past.

This defendant liked fucking trans women. And apparently, he was scary to some of them, allegedly. That means he was creepy and possessive possibly, it does not mean he didn’t realize she was trans, found out, and panicked, thereby removing culpability somehow.

Defendants not being able to speak about all kinds of things to a jury is EXACTLY what is wrong with society. A defendant, on the stand, should be able to say whatever the hell they want, especially in cases that carry decades in prison. If the defendant is guilty, the DA should be able to bring that out on cross.

I also already think jurisprudence in the USA has gone down a dangerous path where more and more rights of defendants are systematically being removed. You see this all the time in cases: defendants can’t argue this, they aren’t allowed to present that, anyone on the jury pool who is black is removed, anyone who knows someone close who has been arrested gets removed, defendants rights are violated over and over and it’s “harmless.” The only jury left supports police and is a certain kind of jury and the only arguments that can be made to a jury are former-DA-turned-judge approved. It’s atrocious. (And please don’t tell me removing black jurors is actually illegal; it happens anyway all the time.)

I didn’t say we aren’t already on the path.

This was a defendant in an ongoing sexual relationship with a trans woman. No one is alleging trans panic when defendant kept coming back for more.

That’s not the actual ruling at all.

https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/W2025-01186-CCA-R3-CDOPN.pdf

It’s a dangerous and scary path to go down to make it illegal for a defendant to present their side of things. This was the correct ruling, and there will possibly be a conviction on retrial.

That’s you. Some people keep guns with them at all times for safety or because they just like guns. If you read the actual ruling, you’ll see Defendant didn’t even get a chance to testify honestly from their perspective when they were trying to put on a self-defense theory. That’s actually unfair, even if you like trans women and support trans women.

I support trans women and…

This was a defendant who knew the victim well. They were in an ongoing sexual relationship. The trial court made it very difficult for the defendant to discuss their relationship or concerns about being hurt during alleged self-defense. And that was defendant’s entire legal defense! And he couldn’t talk about it! Even if too many trans women are being killed, this is not an unfair or bad appellate ruling.

Defendants should be able to present defenses to a jury. This is absolutely not transphobia for the court to rule this way. It’s entirely possible Defendant chose to not testify because of this ruling. In a self-defense case!

The ruling: https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/W2025-01186-CCA-R3-CDOPN.pdf

According to the ruling:

At the pretrial hearing on the State’s motion, defense counsel expressed concern that if the trial court excluded evidence of the victim’s biological sex, it would impact Defendant’s ability to present a defense and his right to testify. Defense counsel stated that if Defendant chose to testify, he would be in a position to have to lie to the jury, “either by omission or just a straight-out lie.”

So defendant was allowed to testify, but couldn’t mention that the victim was trans at all. It’s not right. Defendants should be able to present their side of things.

from the actual ruling:

Logically, courts allow evidence of the physical characteristics of the victim and defendant when evaluating the “reasonableness” and “imminent danger” requirements of a self-defense claim. Here, Defendant argues the “differences in strength and power between a biological man and a woman of the same weight cannot be denied.” In other words, there are physical differences between a biological male who is five-feet-eleven and 262 pounds and a biological female who is five-feet-eleven and 262 pounds. The trial court determined that because the victim was armed, evidence of her biological sex was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial. We disagree.

While a gun might equalize differences in physical strength and size, there are other inherent physiological differences between the sexes that science continues to reveal and that we choose not to ignore. A detailed discussion is not necessary for our analysis; it suffices to acknowledge that these differences exist. However significant or insignificant these differences are, the Tennessee Rules of Evidence set the threshold test for relevance low: evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to prove a consequential fact. See Tenn. R. Evid. 401, Advisory Comm’n Cmt. (“The theoretical test for admissibility is a lenient one . . .”). We decline to hold that the biological sex of the victim is not relevant to a claim of self-defense.

Regarding the danger of unfair prejudice, we recognize that societal biases exist. As counsel for Defendant observed at the pretrial hearing, any prejudices the jury might have against the victim for being transgender could very well be applied to Defendant for being in a sexual relationship with the transgender victim. The trial court was concerned that knowledge of the victim’s biological sex might lead to bias and cause the jury to confuse the issues. The danger of bias, however, ran both ways in this case. Defendant expressed his concern that the jury might be less likely to accept his claim of self-defense based on their understanding of the victim as a woman rather than a biological male. Notably, the victim’s friend, Mr. Hunter, testified the victim called him because the victim thought he could provide some level of intimidation as a male. These societal views on the differences between male and female behaviors only strengthen our belief that a person’s biological sex has relevance to certain issues.

Everyone saw this coming.

It’s shocking to me someone would want to watch this.

Harry Potter was never good. Why would someone even want to read a Harry Potter book obtained before 2020???

The TERF stuff didn’t make Harry Potter bad. It always sucked, and people only realized after the TERF stuff.

Yes, that is clearly literally what I said, right?

This guys slept with his best friend’s wife and then blamed it on alcoholism. What kind of piece of shit do you have to be to do something like that? It’s so treacherous and lacking in empathy to sleep with a best friend’s wife that there has to be a fundamental absence of conscience; and the fact that it wasn’t illegal and he could blame it on alcoholism meant he was able to sweep his vileness under the rug for voter’s to overlook.

This vote doesn’t surprise me. This vote should surprise no one. Gavin Newsom has always been terrible.

This is also an example of how money and power have infected progressivism. If the public really had a real selection of candidates instead of curated talking heads, this situation wouldn’t be occurring. The power of wealthy donors or publicity from privately owned rich media conglomerates ensures that usually only the pre-selected are in the public sphere.

He wrote on his blog “The last loonies on tech’s woke island”… (https://world.hey.com/dhh/calling-someone-a-nazi-is-a-permission-slip-for-violence-4bfbbb82)

Ironically, he’s using it in the context of saying slandering someone as an actual Nazi is unfair to people with more conservative views. But what he’s missing is it takes place in a context where trans people are often killed, subject to discrimination, and often commit suicide due to harassment and discrimination. So the “loonies” and “woke” being juxtaposed so closely together let me understand that he’s on the side of being unkind to trans people, who already have hard lives.

Usually when people write “woke” and “crazy” or “lunatic,” what it really refers to is “It’s crazy that some people born one gender want to be another gender and have different pronouns.” Usually it’s not just welcoming all races at work is “crazy” and “woke.” I’ve never seen someone write “crazy woke radical left” or something like that without also hating trans people. It’s just faster to dog whistle than explicating hate.

I have a better understanding now. Okay, so Omarchy looks interesting, but going to pass on trying it out.