qwhelan

Unfortunately in many jurisdictions it is legally required to do that when passing a pedestrian.

Yeah, it's understandable that the real world is messy and user-sourced data can be very suspect.

The case I'm thinking of is the eastern end of SR-520 over Lake Washington in the Seattle area. It has hundreds/low thousands of bicycle crossings/day (so surely dozens of Garmin users/day), the background is a dammed freshwater lake with a well known elevation, and clear view of the sky. Yet the elevation data is garbage somehow.

It doesn't really matter for planning purposes as any alternative has such a huge delta but it does signal that user data isn't being utilized to refine their data set even on high volume segments.

Yet it's unclear to what extent they actually use them - on freeway adjacent bike paths that have different gradients than the adjacent freeway (typically steeper), it's very clear Garmin is using data referencing the freeway.

Also, part of the City and County of San Francisco!

Well the login message I was greeted with on every ssh connection certainly threatened criminal prosecution for unapproved software at the extremely large bank I worked at.

Unlikely? Sure. But a lawyer somewhere thought it was worth reminding me 10x/day, so going to assume it's possible provided your unauthorized software caused a serious monetary loss.

Also worth mentioning that "unapproved software" on bank infrastructure is what an aggressive prosecutor would call "felony bank hacking".

This is an explicit rule introduced at the beginning of most Caltech courses, so the norm is that that behavior is cheating due to being warned in advance.

Some professors would provide past exams for study aids or use them as homework problems.

However, the explicit default was that you should not look at solutions from prior years. Professors would announce at the beginning of the course that they reuse questions and looking at prior years solutions was an honor code violation. I think it's pretty clear it's cheating when the expectations are clearly outlined.

If you had inadvertently come across the problem before and independently solved it, you were expected to disclose that as part of your answer. I personally had to do this several times, and never suffered any negative consequences for it, but the expectation for honesty was there.

The opening words of ACM95a my year are seared into my mind:

"I would like to apologize to the students who took this course last year. I always aim for a mean exam score of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Last year's mean was 29 and I will attempt to not repeat the mistake"

One example of an adversarial university environment is how fraternities and sororities keep copies of exams and assignments from prior years. Professors know cheating is rampant, so have to change the questions every semester.

Some courses at Caltech had almost identical exams for at least a decade when I went through. The professors knew cheating like the above simply would not be tolerated by undergrads.

I sat on and helped run the Board of Control, which handled academic honor code violations, for several years and professors who had been at other universities would absolutely rave about how much more they could trust Caltech students. And that was while reporting a suspected cheating case to me.

IIRC, CS1 was a mandatory class for other majors (like MechE) and a course in Scheme was basically hazing from their perspective.

I forget if Scheme was moved to a later course or made optional.

As yet another housemate of Andy's at Caltech, it is perhaps worth mentioning that he was also involved in updating Caltech's CS curriculum prior to it becoming as popular as it is today.

Hard to say how much of the trend is just what happened everywhere, but CS1 being in Python rather than Scheme probably helped a bit.

We've come full circle - Amazon has a bookstore chain these days (Amazon Books).