For a usage that includes browsing websites with heavy javascript and playing in emulators with external controllers.
Also, would the WiFi be slower?
It seems to me that the notion of seeking a rigorous path to knowledge, and the very idea of accepting to follow a consistent set of principles does precede any structured method (like the scientific method, or lending credence to mathematics or philosophy as an activity). Was this notion discussed by epistemologists?
This will maybe sound far-fetched but my feeling about the message that episode conveys is that it wants to show how technology-augmented people will experience drug-like addiction in a way they wouldn't expect. Jeremy gets the illusion of working faster, of being very close to finishing Aelita's antivirus program, but it turns out it's an illusory productivity boost that makes him get overconfident about irrational choices he is making (at the start of the episode), and it even turns out at the end that most of his results were erroneous.
Do you think it's resonant with what people have been calling "AI psychosis?"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/14/ai-chatbots-psychosis.
If you think about it, it seems a quite heavy that Hopper managed to find a job as a teacher right after his exile to France under a false identity, not that it wouldn't have been materially possible, but I suppose associates were involved. If you see Delmas' reaction in episode 90 where it is suggested that Aelita is related to Hopper, it's true that it could be justified by the fact Franz went missing and that every connected element could have re-opened the case, but I like to consider the possibility where he particularly takes this at heart because he was somehow involved in Hopper's activities. What do you think?
It seems to me that the notion of seeking a rigorous path to knowledge, and the very idea of accepting to follow a consistent set of principles does precede any structured method (like the scientific method, or lending credence to mathematics or philosophy as an activity). Was this notion discussed by epistemologists?
Think about this for a second: XANA wanted to get the supercomputer destroyed so that Hopper would show up to save the lyoko-warriors. But how would he save them if Lyoko (and thus the scanners) don't exist anymore? If Hopper can know Aelita has fallen in the Network, he can also know that the Factory was destroyed.
I think the only way to solve this is to suppose XANA had a replika with other scanners, and Hopper was aware of them.
This is what I do to assign the "²" key to opening the neotree file tree (I have a :bind (("²" . neotree-toggle-vi))). It seems, though, that it enters in conflict with some modes. Is there a better way for me to handle that that would take precedence over other bindings?
(defun neotree-toggle-vi ()
(interactive)
(if (and (bound-and-true-p evil-mode) (eq evil-state 'insert))
(insert "²")
(neotree-toggle)
(if (neo-global--window-exists-p) (evil-end-of-line) ())
))
In season 1, it seems implicitly to me that XANA merely wants to cause chaos on Earth so that the heroes would get back in time (thus adding to its computational power), as I suppose XANA already figured out that starting actually killing humans would make them reconsider whether it's worth to let the supercomputer on. It'd be very risky for it to bet on killing them all at once.
For season 3 and 4, I'm not sure if XANA did still refrain from killing them. It's probably conscious that killing Hopper is a bigger priority (him being the only person to truly knowing how XANA works) and maybe having killed them would have compromised the plan to get Hopper to show?