As a software engineer, I would love to see more skilled software engineers! Competition is good. Being out-innovated can be very beneficial by pointing out your blind side and making you step up your game.
Equating learning a programming language with learning a human language is nonsensical, in my opinion. Despite the fact that the word "language" is used for both of those things, the two things are very, very different. They use different mental skills and address very different problems.
Coding is an experts-only game and it will remain that.
Well, I wouldn't put it exactly like that, but I have noticed something in common with all of the truly excellent software engineers I've worked with:
all of them loved programming from a very early age, and taught themselves how to do it. All of them were producing working programs in grade school, well before any formal programming classes were available.
What distinguishes a real expert (in any field, I think) is not intelligence, formal training, or job experience. It's interest. If you love doing something, you will do it a lot -- and the only road to being an expert is a ton of practice.
What you're arguing for is teaching algorithmics, and I agree. But that's different from teaching programming (programming, along with a lot of other fields, is built on top of algorithmics).
My kids have been out of school for a while now, so things may have changed, but algorithmics used to be taught as part of the standard curriculum in both math and science classes. They didn't call it that, but that's what it was.
The idea that everybody needs to learn to code is ridiculous. It's like saying that everybody needs to learn how to build a house, or how to build a car, etc.
Just like learning basic carpentry or basic auto repair is a useful life skill, so are basic computer skills. But if programming isn't your thing, then learning it isn't going to do you a lot of good in your life.
It's an important distinction, because what they're engaging in is basically a gentle form of extortion. You accept something you don't want and probably don't want to support
That's a valid perspective, but here's why I don't think of it that way:
If I am to have internet access, then right off the bat I have to accept something I don't want to support: Comcast. So that becomes the baseline, and is true independent of issues around fees. Since I have to accept that, being able to pay less for it is a relative win.
Any bets on whether or not the stats on people like you are a secret closely guarded by your cable company?
I am very well aware that the entire reason they have this deal is to be able to count people like me as if we are "cable subscribers" to artificially inflate their subscriber count. That doesn't bother me, actually.
Your cable provider has oh-so-kindly given you a choice between paying, and paying twice. That's not the same as "not paying for basic service", and not even close to "being paid to have basic cable".
Yes, this is correct -- but since I'm paying the first (or second?) time no matter what, that's the baseline I'm measuring from.
while people like me, who are more careful about our privacy, pay even more money to fund the discounts that others enjoy.
When it comes to loyalty cards (which I don't use for the same reason as you), I avoid the issue by shopping at stores that don't offer loyalty cards. Interestingly, the normal prices as those stores tend to be about the same as a "discount with a loyalty card" at loyalty card stores!
it's something you might want to think about the next time you look at your 'internet' bill.
I think about these issues a lot. I have a serious question for you, though -- what action do you think I should take about the internet service? Since only other option is to go without it, I'll take whatever discounts I can so I can at least minimize the amount of money that goes into the pockets of a company that I loathe.
True, I was simplifying. From my perspective, if you can't watch the video on your own terms, then you aren't in possession of it even if you do possess the bits.
A bit like how if you have encrypted email that you can't read, you aren't really in possession of the message the email contains.
I understand your point of view, but I don't share it.
I do share your concerns and possible solutions to the problem of politicians being disconnected from their constituents -- but I think the larger issue there is centered around money. Unless we find a way to fix the money issue, nothing else will be terribly effective.
There are such taxes, yes, and they're all objectionable. However, the sport fee is the only one that is significantly large. Paying an extra $0.60 because of religious channels? Not enough to get worked up about. Paying an extra $5 because of sports? Screw that.
But, truly, cable isn't worth it to me even if it's free -- which it is! I get basic cable with my internet because my total bill is lower that way than with internet alone. I'm effectively being paid to have basic cable. But watching it is painful, so I don't do it. Instead, I returned the cable box to save that rental fee.
I want to believe that we're just failing to understand each other, but I'm beginning to suspect that you're being deliberately disingenuous.
Whichever is the case, I can't make myself any more clear. If you really think that all predictions must be quantifiable in order to be falsifiable, then go ahead and think of me as an idiot. No skin off of my nose.
The main reason I stopped bothering with cable was the endless sea of crappy programs and commercials, and the terrible video quality.
But an important secondary reason was the insane "sports tax". Making me pay for expensive programming that I have zero interest in was just pouring salt into the wound.
Slashdot Mirror
As a software engineer, I would love to see more skilled software engineers! Competition is good. Being out-innovated can be very beneficial by pointing out your blind side and making you step up your game.
Equating learning a programming language with learning a human language is nonsensical, in my opinion. Despite the fact that the word "language" is used for both of those things, the two things are very, very different. They use different mental skills and address very different problems.
Somehow the last of those three is treated on this site as absurd.
Why do you say that, when I said the same thing in the comment you're replying to?
Coding is an experts-only game and it will remain that.
Well, I wouldn't put it exactly like that, but I have noticed something in common with all of the truly excellent software engineers I've worked with:
all of them loved programming from a very early age, and taught themselves how to do it. All of them were producing working programs in grade school, well before any formal programming classes were available.
What distinguishes a real expert (in any field, I think) is not intelligence, formal training, or job experience. It's interest. If you love doing something, you will do it a lot -- and the only road to being an expert is a ton of practice.
I think I just dumped core.
What you're arguing for is teaching algorithmics, and I agree. But that's different from teaching programming (programming, along with a lot of other fields, is built on top of algorithmics).
My kids have been out of school for a while now, so things may have changed, but algorithmics used to be taught as part of the standard curriculum in both math and science classes. They didn't call it that, but that's what it was.
They don't need help. Digging ditches is good, honorable work.
in my area, you can make very good money doing it. If you're good at it, you can make as much as a programmer.
The idea that everybody needs to learn to code is ridiculous. It's like saying that everybody needs to learn how to build a house, or how to build a car, etc.
Just like learning basic carpentry or basic auto repair is a useful life skill, so are basic computer skills. But if programming isn't your thing, then learning it isn't going to do you a lot of good in your life.
It's an important distinction, because what they're engaging in is basically a gentle form of extortion. You accept something you don't want and probably don't want to support
That's a valid perspective, but here's why I don't think of it that way:
If I am to have internet access, then right off the bat I have to accept something I don't want to support: Comcast. So that becomes the baseline, and is true independent of issues around fees. Since I have to accept that, being able to pay less for it is a relative win.
Any bets on whether or not the stats on people like you are a secret closely guarded by your cable company?
I am very well aware that the entire reason they have this deal is to be able to count people like me as if we are "cable subscribers" to artificially inflate their subscriber count. That doesn't bother me, actually.
Your cable provider has oh-so-kindly given you a choice between paying, and paying twice. That's not the same as "not paying for basic service", and not even close to "being paid to have basic cable".
Yes, this is correct -- but since I'm paying the first (or second?) time no matter what, that's the baseline I'm measuring from.
while people like me, who are more careful about our privacy, pay even more money to fund the discounts that others enjoy.
When it comes to loyalty cards (which I don't use for the same reason as you), I avoid the issue by shopping at stores that don't offer loyalty cards. Interestingly, the normal prices as those stores tend to be about the same as a "discount with a loyalty card" at loyalty card stores!
it's something you might want to think about the next time you look at your 'internet' bill.
I think about these issues a lot. I have a serious question for you, though -- what action do you think I should take about the internet service? Since only other option is to go without it, I'll take whatever discounts I can so I can at least minimize the amount of money that goes into the pockets of a company that I loathe.
That's what happens practically every time, though.
Perhaps so, but that doesn't make the headline incorrect.
Yes, I understood all that perfectly well.
Note that I wasn't saying that the service was bad or useless. I was just taking issue with the "accumulating a library" description.
adheres to the DAA's Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising
Ugh.
Could there be a less meaningful thing that that?
True, I was simplifying. From my perspective, if you can't watch the video on your own terms, then you aren't in possession of it even if you do possess the bits.
A bit like how if you have encrypted email that you can't read, you aren't really in possession of the message the email contains.
Actually, it does.
I understand your point of view, but I don't share it.
I do share your concerns and possible solutions to the problem of politicians being disconnected from their constituents -- but I think the larger issue there is centered around money. Unless we find a way to fix the money issue, nothing else will be terribly effective.
make accumulating a large digital cinematic library feasible
If you don't have the video in your possession, I don't think it counts as "accumulating a library".
You should see the politics sphere in the US now.
How could I not? That stuff is all but inescapable.
Me too. And yet the FCC says it's a competitive marketplace.
If a person is online, they don't pay for anything.
My bank statement proves this wrong. I pay real money to a number of online services and websites.
There are such taxes, yes, and they're all objectionable. However, the sport fee is the only one that is significantly large. Paying an extra $0.60 because of religious channels? Not enough to get worked up about. Paying an extra $5 because of sports? Screw that.
But, truly, cable isn't worth it to me even if it's free -- which it is! I get basic cable with my internet because my total bill is lower that way than with internet alone. I'm effectively being paid to have basic cable. But watching it is painful, so I don't do it. Instead, I returned the cable box to save that rental fee.
I bet you listen more closely to how all this is reported on by others who share your bias than the primary information sources, but have it your way.
You'd lose that bet in a rather large way.
I want to believe that we're just failing to understand each other, but I'm beginning to suspect that you're being deliberately disingenuous.
Whichever is the case, I can't make myself any more clear. If you really think that all predictions must be quantifiable in order to be falsifiable, then go ahead and think of me as an idiot. No skin off of my nose.
The main reason I stopped bothering with cable was the endless sea of crappy programs and commercials, and the terrible video quality.
But an important secondary reason was the insane "sports tax". Making me pay for expensive programming that I have zero interest in was just pouring salt into the wound.
arguably not necessary if you are confident your site is secure.
If you are confident your site is secure, you've already lost.
Holy shit. That's insane.
Nobody trusts Facebook.
Facebook has more than 2 billion active users. So it appears that 2 billion people trust them.