I remember, surprisingly, wondering wtf. "It was just a garish choice, in case somebody out there liked ugly bright red and yellow.
The ‘Fluorescent’ theme was also pretty ugly, but it didn’t have a catchy name, so I’ve never heard anything about it."
@pluralistic hangs out on Masto and shares his weekly posts and updates.
And he’s right. Corporations enshittified the internet.
Precision and volume are the key metrics. They have precision here, but it looks like they won’t get volume.
“E-beam lithography machines cannot produce chips at a large scale like Dutch company ASML’s DUV and EUV lithography systems, but they excel in the testing stage of production, offering high-precision circuit patterning and design flexibility. Priced lower than imported machines, Xizhi can pattern circuit lines as narrow as 8 nanometres, with a positioning accuracy of 0.6 nanometres – matching international standards.”
So you teach something different from the mainstream - cool. But don’t be surprised when students or AI cite others or take an alternative position.
I’m no economist but I had plenty of professors who wanted their particular theories reflected back at them.
While students should do their own reading and writing, using ‘they write mainstream ideas’ as a litmus test for writing and AI seems parochial. And I’d go so far as to say AI is becoming a standard research and writing aid like the web word processors, and you sound like teachers who ranted against those too.
Have you engaged either group in open discussion about comparing the perspectives you’re challenging? I bet several modern models could debate your philosophy on merit, I wonder if you ever gave students the chance.