This would be an additional cost of exactly how much? They don't say. Whatever the cost may happen to be, it is surely nonzero. This feature is unlikely to be favored by the market, so the companies making the phones won't want to include it. It might even necessitate reduced functionality. Therefore, this would require a government mandate. What penalty would there be for failure to comply? How intrusive would they have to be to make sure this came to pass? How much would this cost our government? Us? How would all these things affect the market?
Now to the important part. Would it really work? If it did, how easy would it be to hack the system? Mandated communication equals easy virus spread? How many false alarms? Would it promote overconfidence and lax insecurity?
Is this a good idea? I'm not sure. If it prevented a nuclear explosion in a major city that would obviously be a great thing, but what if it made us fail to do so? What if it takes funds that could have been used for more effective measures, and wastes it? There are too many questions about this.
Grinding is a bad skill to learn for the simple reason that they might become resigned to it. Teach them patience. Teach them practice. Teach them to work hard. Don't teach them grinding. Sure, grinding is an easy way to attempt teaching those things, but it isn't worth it. Grinding is just one step from giving up, and that is the worst thing they could possibly learn. Anyway, life can be a grind, no doubt about it, but grinding is not life. Eventually they will start grinding, but it should always be alien, foreign, so that no matter how good they may be at it, they'll keep their eyes open for when it is not necessary, and take that leap of inspiration into something entirely different. Grinding is static. Life is change. Prepare them for that.
One of many major problems with this post is that it relies on everything being a zero-sum game, which inevitably leads to to insane conclusion that every worker is 'exploited'. In a capitalist system, people have a choice of who to work for, including themselves. That they don't choose themselves is intended to be in their own interest. The company they work for gains something valuable, but so do they, or they wouldn't work. Their labor is worth what they agreed it to be, or they move elsewhere. They have that choice. It is their decision, and they make it in their own (and loved one's) interest. Often what they gain over keeping all that they make is stability, but they frequently get more money than they could on their own, and the entire capitalist system makes what they buy cheaper, meaning that they almost always get far more than they would under another system. Capitalism is already the most moral economic system on earth, and the most productive. They freely give something to get something they consider more valuable. Capitalism is a win, win system.
Slashdot Mirror
This would be an additional cost of exactly how much? They don't say. Whatever the cost may happen to be, it is surely nonzero. This feature is unlikely to be favored by the market, so the companies making the phones won't want to include it. It might even necessitate reduced functionality. Therefore, this would require a government mandate. What penalty would there be for failure to comply? How intrusive would they have to be to make sure this came to pass? How much would this cost our government? Us? How would all these things affect the market?
Now to the important part. Would it really work? If it did, how easy would it be to hack the system? Mandated communication equals easy virus spread? How many false alarms? Would it promote overconfidence and lax insecurity?
Is this a good idea? I'm not sure. If it prevented a nuclear explosion in a major city that would obviously be a great thing, but what if it made us fail to do so? What if it takes funds that could have been used for more effective measures, and wastes it? There are too many questions about this.
So, is it impractical?
Grinding is a bad skill to learn for the simple reason that they might become resigned to it. Teach them patience. Teach them practice. Teach them to work hard. Don't teach them grinding. Sure, grinding is an easy way to attempt teaching those things, but it isn't worth it. Grinding is just one step from giving up, and that is the worst thing they could possibly learn.
Anyway, life can be a grind, no doubt about it, but grinding is not life. Eventually they will start grinding, but it should always be alien, foreign, so that no matter how good they may be at it, they'll keep their eyes open for when it is not necessary, and take that leap of inspiration into something entirely different. Grinding is static. Life is change. Prepare them for that.
One of many major problems with this post is that it relies on everything being a zero-sum game, which inevitably leads to to insane conclusion that every worker is 'exploited'. In a capitalist system, people have a choice of who to work for, including themselves. That they don't choose themselves is intended to be in their own interest. The company they work for gains something valuable, but so do they, or they wouldn't work. Their labor is worth what they agreed it to be, or they move elsewhere. They have that choice. It is their decision, and they make it in their own (and loved one's) interest. Often what they gain over keeping all that they make is stability, but they frequently get more money than they could on their own, and the entire capitalist system makes what they buy cheaper, meaning that they almost always get far more than they would under another system. Capitalism is already the most moral economic system on earth, and the most productive. They freely give something to get something they consider more valuable. Capitalism is a win, win system.