That's quite a closed-minded way to go about understanding someone else's point of view isn't it. The analogy I've used before is the criminal is guilty of committing a crime, but even so probably shouldn't have left your entire life savings on the coffee table of your ground floor flat with the windows wide open, whilst you went out to the shops to buy a spicy vegetable and quinoa laksa.
The problem is that thieves will be thieves. If your pile of cash is well hidden they will just keep looking until they find someone else's (maybe it's even yours, if your neighbors happen to be all better at securing their valuables than you are). Look at what's happened to the world of car theft (a very well studied phenomenon.) Cars for a decade have generally all come equipped with simple ignition lockouts that make hot-wiring impossible. Thieves now prowl exclusively for cars with keys in them. What was once a relatively safe act (idling a car unattended to warm it up/cool it off) is now the most probable way to have it stolen, since thieves know that cars are worthless without keys. One group gets safer (those who never idle their cars unattended) and the other gets much less safe. It's zero sum unless you come up with a way to actually DE-incentivize the act of theft.
The cost of entering is too high and has too big of a risk walking away without my expenses covered.
Indeed, go big or go home. Impressing the likes of Amazon would mean millions of dollars in contracts (even just for the IP surrounding advanced robotic processes) so if the reward isn't big enough to counter the risk (i.e. you think you won't do well) then by all means move along.
Given the increasing visibility of the negative externalities of human pickers at Amazon's third party fulfillment locations, they are going to be increasingly eager to do anything they can to reduce the number of humans involved in order fulfillment.
So basically they're paying the winners less than one year's salary for a picker, in order to develop a technology that will permanently replace virtually every picker in all their warehouses. I see how this is a good deal for Amazon, not so much how it's fair for the competitors or good for the human race.
It doesn't mention anything about intellectual property, patents, etc except this bland remark: "Participants will be encouraged to share and disseminate their approach to improve future challenge results and industrial implementations."
So, it is doubtful that entry into the contest or acceptance of the prize would compromise intellectual property (trade secrets, patents, copyrights, etc) of the creators. Much as the X prize, Grand Challenge, etc did not require contestants or winners to forfeit any IP. From the look of it, Amazon is staging a contest, paying travel expenses, and offering a prize, all in lieu of executing a RFP and performing testing themselves. Still probably a win for them in the end, if one or more of the contestants is in fact a commercial robotics vendor.
There are very few legitimate reasons to run multi-GB BitTorrents at full-bore in a coffee shop, and I promise you that there are simply not that many people who desperately need an emergency.iso download of CentOS or Ubuntu away from home.
It's abusers of the system that eventually become the reason why we can't have nice things, so this little "wrong" is a pretty nice way to keep bigger "wrong"s to a minimum, no?
First they came for teh bittorrenters, and I said nothing, because I was not a bittorrenter...
You need to be careful about giving ssh high priority because it's possible to run a tunnel over ssh and do your torrenting that way.
Torrenting over SSH? That's all kinds of wrong. Why not just run a bt client on the host you are SSHing to and then download it via scp once it's done?
so go to a coffee shop where the wifi doesn't suck. Problem solved, coffee shops customer-regulated into competitively providing decent internet.
Can you recommend one? I have to get the latest season of game of thrones before my buddies find out I am only caught up on true blood. I mean, i have to check my email. That's right, check my email. List please?
but, so help me God, if Comcast blocks bittorrent traffic, I'm going to call for heads to roll!
I really wish I had mod points to downvote this garbage post.
If tor promised X amount of bandwidth to all of its users, your point would be more valid. That's not the case. Comcast is a PAID service that promises X amount of bandwidth. Tor and Comcast should never, ever be compared in this way. It's a fucking shame that people even think your post is upvoteable.
The people who use tor for downloading movies/music/etc should be hanged. They're ruining it for those who use it for legit purposes.
Whoops! Where/when did Tor get into this discussion? Tor and Bittorrent are so far from the same thing that you are going to need to hand in your geek card.
Don't get me wrong, I think BitTorrent is very cool technological achievement. But transferring data between semi-random hosts around the globe and opening hundreds of TCP connections per computer while doing it, is like the ultimate way to clog the pipes.
BitTorrent uses UDP when done correctly, and pretty much becomes the absolute best way to get data to many computers very quickly.
A torrent with few seeders isn't very efficient, but one with many hundreds of well-configured peers is hard to beat on overall transfer speed.
One man's "Best way to get data to many computers. Yay!" is another man's "Best way to get data to many computers. Oh fuck its another DDoS!"
Speed test sites don't need to be in collusion. ISP's just prioritize their traffic. It's quite obvious with my ISP if I do speed test sites versus just finding something large to download from a cloud storage service.
Doublepost...
One does not simply measure bandwidth
Without starting five or six torrents and leaving u/l and d/l limits turned off
Speed test sites don't need to be in collusion. ISP's just prioritize their traffic. It's quite obvious with my ISP if I do speed test sites versus just finding something large to download from a cloud storage service.
The obvious issue with that thesis is that you can't prove that the cloud storage site itself is performing slowly due to a bottleneck where it peers with your provider (or many other possible reasons) and while some providers are generally better than others about managing internal bandwidth, none can be said to have ALL uncongested peering points to ALL local customers and this obviously will have the same negative impact on user experience as a locally congested network.
My understanding is that, with very few (and increasingly fewer with each new version) exceptions, anything you can do in VB.NET, you can do in C#. Does Office only understand VB.NET?
The Office functions might be known to C#, but Office admins (those creating/maintaining the scripts) definitely do not know C#.
"Go spend about an hour on youtube to see how to crimp RJ45 ends (it's actually easier than it sounds) and stick with the 568-b standard for all ends. Don't worry about crossover, straight through, etc. Every time I hear people try to be "smart" and talk about doing it "right" I kind of chuckle, and here's why: Part of the gigabit ethernet standard (that is, to receive IEEE 802.3 certification for gigabit) the switches AND the ethernet ports MUST provide the auto-MDIX feature, so fretting about crossover is pointless."
Are you saying here that 1) You don't punch both ends with the proper wiring (straight through) (you also seem to think it doesn't matter) and 2) that you are seriously suggesting wiring wallports to RJ-45 ends as opposed to a proper patch panel?
Boy no wonder you only charge $30 an hour! One gets what one pays for indeed!
When you buy keystones for wall jacks, they come with 568A and 568B coloring on them. Telling the difference on the tiny little lable might elude some novices. The point of saying this is that it doesn't actually matter (but given the choice just use 568B on all ends to keep it simple). He even mentions that you should use wall jack kits, not just dangle a cable with a RJ45 on the end of it out of a hole in the wall. Jeez.
It is based on tetris, but it is actually pretty good history illustration.
Holy hell...
"what's the point of it all/ when you're building a wall/ and in front of your eyes/ it disappears?" "pointless work for pointless pay/ this is one game I won't play"
I just realized how Tetris is really just an analog for communism... Childhood Ruined.
I follow this area from decently close, although I'mnot a contributor. A less-buzzwordy explanation is that the project is adapting current virtualization and middleware infrastructure to let telecom workloads (network elements) run in VMs. Broadly this means developing ways to reduce packet processing overheads, more efficient virtual switching, and controlling latency much more tightly than current mainstream solutions.
Maybe you can answer this then: What is a "Telecom workload" except perhaps a domestic spying node? Isn't the point of being a Telecom to just move the fucking packets? Why are we virtualizing that when at present, big dedicated routers are needed to do it properly? Are they seriously saying they want to get an even bigger machine, put a bunch of software in the middle that might increase reliability (but most likely just create a new, unknown single point of failure), and call it "improved"? Or, are they just trying to carve out new markets for virtualization now that all the easy ones have been bled dry?
collaboratively developing complex open source platforms in order to accelerate deployment of new business models while enabling interoperability across a wide range of products and services
Bingo!
I was thinking the same thing. They basically came up with a "great" reason for a whole new standard. To hell with the old standard! Whoever invented that was obviously dumb!
Yes, because p2p comm during extended blackouts is trivially easy to maintain in the face of depleting battery power (Also, extended blackouts are oh-so-common in modern life). File transfers? Don't we already have a tech called bluetooth for that?
Fucking luddites on a tech site.
Yes, we have wifi, and bluetooth, and whatever, but LTE could be a technology to rule them all. Imagine having one protocol that could scale from pico home sites to nationwide networks. Having your phone connected to a home LTE hotspot that sits on your free fast wired internet connection, that then seemlessly hands over when you leave the house to standard mobile comms, or does P2P when you're physically near someone and need a photo or video from their device. We could do away with a whole bunch of different technologies potentially and replace them with one overarching wireless protocol that is better than them all.
When there is a real disaster and a provider (AT&T, Verizon, etc) wants to restore service, they typically bring a tractor trailer full of hardware, a generator, plus a huge mast antenna, all just to serve as a temporary cell site. It's a bit of a stretch to think that a new trick in the LTE protocol will make all of that magically happen between handsets without being a huge drain on each handset (making them die even faster in an area where they probably cant be easily charged). This will be more of a gimmick to let the handset get data from nearby devices, like a dinner menu or a coupon for $1 off dog food (in exchange for some juicy personal data, of course).
I think it would have been a great idea on the part of the supervisor to, rather than write their names on the cups, just give them each a name as they order. "Hi! Your name is Fred today, what can I get you?"
A thermal scanner to watch their face for stress would probably flush out real names pretty accurately, if the barista managed to guess right. Really the key security issue with this whole premise is the barista. Why not just do a background check on them?
You don't PWM an AC waveform. You PWM a DC output (as it has no waveform, it peaks and stays peaked.)
PWM is the most convenient term (the OP even stated such) and given a fixed frequency, you can think of a thyristor dimmer (the kind in question) as strictly a PWM tool (since each position of the dial corresponds to a specific on-time:off-time ratio), the only difference being that the duty cycle does not correlate 1:1 with the output power (you have to integrate since you are clipping part of a sine).
Just put a sticker on the window, kind of like the "oil change reminders" that says audio and video recording is taking place in the vehicle. I haven't looked at this car specifically, but nearly every late-model car has a display in the instrument cluster or the radio/nav system. Make it turn red with the text "Valet Mode - Audio and Video Recording in Progress" and problem solved. If the valet doesn't want to be subjected to the recording, then he can get back out, tell the driver he'll/she'll have to park the car themselves.
This has the obvious effect of also getting the valet to behave themselves. If I owned a Corvette, I would eagerly (but casually) say to the valet "the recorder is on, be careful". Otherwise, you have an insurance claim to file anyway after he wrecks it, regardless of what gets recorded.
We used CFLs in the hall, where they are regularly switched on and off by a motion sensor. None of them lasted more than 3 weeks.
Most cheap electronic switches (motion sensor, time delay, dimmer, etc) will NOT work for crap with any sort of ballasted bulb like a CFL or tube. I'm surprised it turned on in the first place. It was *not* the repetitive on/off that killed your CFLs, it was the switch you used to do it. You need a ballast-rated switch (and a good one at that) to do it right.
I dunno about LEDs, but CFLs don't last as long as they are sposed to. Of course they still save money in power costs
Let me guess you scooped them out of the dollar bin? I have a vast collection of Sylvania CFLs that I have used, packed, moved, used, and repeated for about 10 years now. Occasionally the ones I use the most (that probably do burn 5,000 hrs/year) will blow out or develop a ballast issue (buzzing) and I retire them, long past their stated 10,000 hour lifespan. But the biggest advantage to buying superior CFLs is getting better color out of them. So many people shun CFLs because all they have experienced were the invisible reds and browns of a very shitty collection of bulbs.
The best post-undergrad standardized test for critical thinking skills is the LSAT. Looking at the scores broken down by major, more STEM degrees appear in the upper half, but some, like Computer Science, don't fare too well, getting beaten by many non-STEM fields.
Its worth noting that those taking the LSAT fall into the "I want to be a lawyer" category... and then please direct your attention to where "Pre law" is on the list. The scores on this list are from people self-selected for wanting to make the leap from whatever undergrad degree they had, to law school. Pre-law scores are below average because *everyone* who got a Pre Law undergrad now has to go to law school and therefore must take the LSAT. Selection bias is funny like that. Meanwhile, people with other undergrad degrees either have a deep passion/talent for law (providing the inspiration for succeeding on the LSAT) or they simply ignore law school and do whatever else it is they graduated to do.
If you picked people at random (regardless of intention of going to law school) and sat them for the LSAT, you would get useful data. Please only interpret this as tacit disagreement with the premise that your data demonstrates the value non-STEM degrees; I am not trying to comment at all on the actual value of said degrees.
Slashdot Mirror
That's quite a closed-minded way to go about understanding someone else's point of view isn't it. The analogy I've used before is the criminal is guilty of committing a crime, but even so probably shouldn't have left your entire life savings on the coffee table of your ground floor flat with the windows wide open, whilst you went out to the shops to buy a spicy vegetable and quinoa laksa.
The problem is that thieves will be thieves. If your pile of cash is well hidden they will just keep looking until they find someone else's (maybe it's even yours, if your neighbors happen to be all better at securing their valuables than you are). Look at what's happened to the world of car theft (a very well studied phenomenon.) Cars for a decade have generally all come equipped with simple ignition lockouts that make hot-wiring impossible. Thieves now prowl exclusively for cars with keys in them. What was once a relatively safe act (idling a car unattended to warm it up/cool it off) is now the most probable way to have it stolen, since thieves know that cars are worthless without keys. One group gets safer (those who never idle their cars unattended) and the other gets much less safe. It's zero sum unless you come up with a way to actually DE-incentivize the act of theft.
The cost of entering is too high and has too big of a risk walking away without my expenses covered.
Indeed, go big or go home. Impressing the likes of Amazon would mean millions of dollars in contracts (even just for the IP surrounding advanced robotic processes) so if the reward isn't big enough to counter the risk (i.e. you think you won't do well) then by all means move along.
Given the increasing visibility of the negative externalities of human pickers at Amazon's third party fulfillment locations, they are going to be increasingly eager to do anything they can to reduce the number of humans involved in order fulfillment.
So basically they're paying the winners less than one year's salary for a picker, in order to develop a technology that will permanently replace virtually every picker in all their warehouses. I see how this is a good deal for Amazon, not so much how it's fair for the competitors or good for the human race.
It doesn't mention anything about intellectual property, patents, etc except this bland remark: "Participants will be encouraged to share and disseminate their approach to improve future challenge results and industrial implementations."
So, it is doubtful that entry into the contest or acceptance of the prize would compromise intellectual property (trade secrets, patents, copyrights, etc) of the creators. Much as the X prize, Grand Challenge, etc did not require contestants or winners to forfeit any IP. From the look of it, Amazon is staging a contest, paying travel expenses, and offering a prize, all in lieu of executing a RFP and performing testing themselves. Still probably a win for them in the end, if one or more of the contestants is in fact a commercial robotics vendor.
There are very few legitimate reasons to run multi-GB BitTorrents at full-bore in a coffee shop, and I promise you that there are simply not that many people who desperately need an emergency .iso download of CentOS or Ubuntu away from home.
It's abusers of the system that eventually become the reason why we can't have nice things, so this little "wrong" is a pretty nice way to keep bigger "wrong"s to a minimum, no?
First they came for teh bittorrenters, and I said nothing, because I was not a bittorrenter...
You need to be careful about giving ssh high priority because it's possible to run a tunnel over ssh and do your torrenting that way.
Torrenting over SSH? That's all kinds of wrong. Why not just run a bt client on the host you are SSHing to and then download it via scp once it's done?
so go to a coffee shop where the wifi doesn't suck. Problem solved, coffee shops customer-regulated into competitively providing decent internet.
Can you recommend one? I have to get the latest season of game of thrones before my buddies find out I am only caught up on true blood. I mean, i have to check my email. That's right, check my email. List please?
but, so help me God, if Comcast blocks bittorrent traffic, I'm going to call for heads to roll!
I really wish I had mod points to downvote this garbage post.
If tor promised X amount of bandwidth to all of its users, your point would be more valid. That's not the case. Comcast is a PAID service that promises X amount of bandwidth. Tor and Comcast should never, ever be compared in this way. It's a fucking shame that people even think your post is upvoteable.
The people who use tor for downloading movies/music/etc should be hanged. They're ruining it for those who use it for legit purposes.
Whoops! Where/when did Tor get into this discussion? Tor and Bittorrent are so far from the same thing that you are going to need to hand in your geek card.
Don't get me wrong, I think BitTorrent is very cool technological achievement. But transferring data between semi-random hosts around the globe and opening hundreds of TCP connections per computer while doing it, is like the ultimate way to clog the pipes.
BitTorrent uses UDP when done correctly, and pretty much becomes the absolute best way to get data to many computers very quickly.
A torrent with few seeders isn't very efficient, but one with many hundreds of well-configured peers is hard to beat on overall transfer speed.
One man's "Best way to get data to many computers. Yay!" is another man's "Best way to get data to many computers. Oh fuck its another DDoS!"
Won't work if it's widely known.
Speed test sites don't need to be in collusion. ISP's just prioritize their traffic. It's quite obvious with my ISP if I do speed test sites versus just finding something large to download from a cloud storage service.
Doublepost...
One does not simply measure bandwidth
Without starting five or six torrents and leaving u/l and d/l limits turned off
Won't work if it's widely known.
Speed test sites don't need to be in collusion. ISP's just prioritize their traffic. It's quite obvious with my ISP if I do speed test sites versus just finding something large to download from a cloud storage service.
The obvious issue with that thesis is that you can't prove that the cloud storage site itself is performing slowly due to a bottleneck where it peers with your provider (or many other possible reasons) and while some providers are generally better than others about managing internal bandwidth, none can be said to have ALL uncongested peering points to ALL local customers and this obviously will have the same negative impact on user experience as a locally congested network.
"It's way too handy and there's no alternative."
My understanding is that, with very few (and increasingly fewer with each new version) exceptions, anything you can do in VB.NET, you can do in C#. Does Office only understand VB.NET?
The Office functions might be known to C#, but Office admins (those creating/maintaining the scripts) definitely do not know C#.
Are you saying here that 1) You don't punch both ends with the proper wiring (straight through) (you also seem to think it doesn't matter) and 2) that you are seriously suggesting wiring wallports to RJ-45 ends as opposed to a proper patch panel?
Boy no wonder you only charge $30 an hour! One gets what one pays for indeed!
When you buy keystones for wall jacks, they come with 568A and 568B coloring on them. Telling the difference on the tiny little lable might elude some novices. The point of saying this is that it doesn't actually matter (but given the choice just use 568B on all ends to keep it simple). He even mentions that you should use wall jack kits, not just dangle a cable with a RJ45 on the end of it out of a hole in the wall. Jeez.
Why not?
See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
It is based on tetris, but it is actually pretty good history illustration.
Holy hell...
"what's the point of it all/ when you're building a wall/ and in front of your eyes/ it disappears?"
"pointless work for pointless pay/ this is one game I won't play"
I just realized how Tetris is really just an analog for communism... Childhood Ruined.
I follow this area from decently close, although I'mnot a contributor. A less-buzzwordy explanation is that the project is adapting current virtualization and middleware infrastructure to let telecom workloads (network elements) run in VMs. Broadly this means developing ways to reduce packet processing overheads, more efficient virtual switching, and controlling latency much more tightly than current mainstream solutions.
Maybe you can answer this then: What is a "Telecom workload" except perhaps a domestic spying node? Isn't the point of being a Telecom to just move the fucking packets? Why are we virtualizing that when at present, big dedicated routers are needed to do it properly? Are they seriously saying they want to get an even bigger machine, put a bunch of software in the middle that might increase reliability (but most likely just create a new, unknown single point of failure), and call it "improved"? Or, are they just trying to carve out new markets for virtualization now that all the easy ones have been bled dry?
all software is complex, or at least complex enough to have bugs.
Your first Hello World didn't go so well, did it?
collaboratively developing complex open source platforms in order to accelerate deployment of new business models while enabling interoperability across a wide range of products and services
Bingo!
I was thinking the same thing. They basically came up with a "great" reason for a whole new standard. To hell with the old standard! Whoever invented that was obviously dumb!
Yes, because p2p comm during extended blackouts is trivially easy to maintain in the face of depleting battery power (Also, extended blackouts are oh-so-common in modern life). File transfers? Don't we already have a tech called bluetooth for that?
Fucking luddites on a tech site.
Yes, we have wifi, and bluetooth, and whatever, but LTE could be a technology to rule them all. Imagine having one protocol that could scale from pico home sites to nationwide networks. Having your phone connected to a home LTE hotspot that sits on your free fast wired internet connection, that then seemlessly hands over when you leave the house to standard mobile comms, or does P2P when you're physically near someone and need a photo or video from their device. We could do away with a whole bunch of different technologies potentially and replace them with one overarching wireless protocol that is better than them all.
When there is a real disaster and a provider (AT&T, Verizon, etc) wants to restore service, they typically bring a tractor trailer full of hardware, a generator, plus a huge mast antenna, all just to serve as a temporary cell site. It's a bit of a stretch to think that a new trick in the LTE protocol will make all of that magically happen between handsets without being a huge drain on each handset (making them die even faster in an area where they probably cant be easily charged). This will be more of a gimmick to let the handset get data from nearby devices, like a dinner menu or a coupon for $1 off dog food (in exchange for some juicy personal data, of course).
I think it would have been a great idea on the part of the supervisor to, rather than write their names on the cups, just give them each a name as they order. "Hi! Your name is Fred today, what can I get you?"
A thermal scanner to watch their face for stress would probably flush out real names pretty accurately, if the barista managed to guess right. Really the key security issue with this whole premise is the barista. Why not just do a background check on them?
You don't PWM an AC waveform. You PWM a DC output (as it has no waveform, it peaks and stays peaked.)
PWM is the most convenient term (the OP even stated such) and given a fixed frequency, you can think of a thyristor dimmer (the kind in question) as strictly a PWM tool (since each position of the dial corresponds to a specific on-time:off-time ratio), the only difference being that the duty cycle does not correlate 1:1 with the output power (you have to integrate since you are clipping part of a sine).
Just put a sticker on the window, kind of like the "oil change reminders" that says audio and video recording is taking place in the vehicle. I haven't looked at this car specifically, but nearly every late-model car has a display in the instrument cluster or the radio/nav system. Make it turn red with the text "Valet Mode - Audio and Video Recording in Progress" and problem solved. If the valet doesn't want to be subjected to the recording, then he can get back out, tell the driver he'll/she'll have to park the car themselves.
This has the obvious effect of also getting the valet to behave themselves. If I owned a Corvette, I would eagerly (but casually) say to the valet "the recorder is on, be careful". Otherwise, you have an insurance claim to file anyway after he wrecks it, regardless of what gets recorded.
Out with it, where are these scathing reviews of yours?
We used CFLs in the hall, where they are regularly switched on and off by a motion sensor. None of them lasted more than 3 weeks.
Most cheap electronic switches (motion sensor, time delay, dimmer, etc) will NOT work for crap with any sort of ballasted bulb like a CFL or tube. I'm surprised it turned on in the first place. It was *not* the repetitive on/off that killed your CFLs, it was the switch you used to do it. You need a ballast-rated switch (and a good one at that) to do it right.
I dunno about LEDs, but CFLs don't last as long as they are sposed to.
Of course they still save money in power costs
Let me guess you scooped them out of the dollar bin? I have a vast collection of Sylvania CFLs that I have used, packed, moved, used, and repeated for about 10 years now. Occasionally the ones I use the most (that probably do burn 5,000 hrs/year) will blow out or develop a ballast issue (buzzing) and I retire them, long past their stated 10,000 hour lifespan. But the biggest advantage to buying superior CFLs is getting better color out of them. So many people shun CFLs because all they have experienced were the invisible reds and browns of a very shitty collection of bulbs.
A little tri-corder like device that could help me find my security badge in my house.
If they have stickers I could put on other things, too, even better.
You already have one, it's called a recent smartphone. Stick-on tags? here you go: https://www.sticknfind.com/
Can you back that up with data?
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2013/10/28/which-undergraduate-majors-score-the-highest-on-lsat/
The best post-undergrad standardized test for critical thinking skills is the LSAT. Looking at the scores broken down by major, more STEM degrees appear in the upper half, but some, like Computer Science, don't fare too well, getting beaten by many non-STEM fields.
Its worth noting that those taking the LSAT fall into the "I want to be a lawyer" category... and then please direct your attention to where "Pre law" is on the list. The scores on this list are from people self-selected for wanting to make the leap from whatever undergrad degree they had, to law school. Pre-law scores are below average because *everyone* who got a Pre Law undergrad now has to go to law school and therefore must take the LSAT. Selection bias is funny like that. Meanwhile, people with other undergrad degrees either have a deep passion/talent for law (providing the inspiration for succeeding on the LSAT) or they simply ignore law school and do whatever else it is they graduated to do.
If you picked people at random (regardless of intention of going to law school) and sat them for the LSAT, you would get useful data. Please only interpret this as tacit disagreement with the premise that your data demonstrates the value non-STEM degrees; I am not trying to comment at all on the actual value of said degrees.