Thanks! It's nice to start the day with a good laugh.
Among changes in the world that my code has enabled is the quantified reduction of occurrences of neighbor-upon-neighbor violence in Africa.
If your code isn't helping others do better and more effective work, find entertainment to better enable the user's effectiveness in life, or whatever, maybe you should be asking: whose head is up her or his arse? If you aren't creating that kind of value, then while all my clients and customers will continuously grow more effective and wealthy yours will become iteratively more poor and less effective. Suppose you're willing to hazard a guess about the likely impacts that will have on our revenue streams?
Coding is about evolving the activities of humanity and by so doing, directly making the world better.
Where the work of persons can be automated we do so with code in order to allow the attention and creativity that would otherwise be avoided or consumed to be redirected to solve bigger, harder, and more interesting problems to more effectively accomplish our goals, whatever they might be.
Caveats about our lack of understanding about what better might be, et cetera, aside: at least we can provide ourselves more free resources with which to solve and consider such problems.
It seems a faulty jump to go from the observations that the study participants did not use the two elements of cognition together to the assertion that one cannot use both capacities at the same time. At the very least it should be theoretically possible for neural connectivity to be established between the two sub-networks and as a result to activate both capabilities concurrently. Certainly we should be able to imagine circumstances where having such an ability would be advantageous, such as the processing and understanding of the experience but also wise and healthy reaction within the emotional interactions we engage in with our loved ones.
Nerds are commonly arrogant in their youth. We pay attention to how things actually work and drive towards accuracy and truth/fact. In a sense it is the expression of dominance as a counter to the manners in which we are not dominant and this has been rubbed in our faces through a lack of mates, popularity, et cetera. However, it is an artifact of youth as a true nerd will quickly identify the limitations of his or her knowledge and thereby gain humility, will also gather a peer group in which they are not always the brightest and thereby gain the insight of having been a big fish in a small pond only en route to the ocean amongst the whales, and will experience the failures and manifested risks of arrogance learning to function in a world of people where our interests are joined and others have decisions.
Our strengths are long term in nature and, of course, not all of us successfully develop. We fail to continue growing and developing at our own peril. At the same time, the majority of our world's leaders and powerful people were once considered nerds.
As a reformed previous "brilliant jerk" one of the things I came to realize was that during that time my jerkishness was motivated by being requested and incented, even required, toward such behaviors but to be straightforward, it was also a result of my limitations of understanding and experience in working with people. What I needed was someone to help me understand the social side of the business and the greater value and advantage I could drive through greater diplomacy, empathy, and constructivity within my communications.
You might just find that you evolve the individual as well as the culture of the company while demonstrating loyalty and caring to and for your employees while retaining the talent and capability, accelerating broader productivity, and improving morale.
Mathematics is most basically a field encompassing the methods and concerns of quantification.
The field of computer science has largely been developed and expanded by mathematicians but I can only accept your assertion if you can demonstrate mathematics ability to address matters such as semantics or all of the other myriad concerns that are generally accepted aspects of the informatics field. Mathematics is a terribly handy and important tool in the toolbox but just one. The general companion idiom you may recognize is that if all you have is a hammer, the world is composed of nails.
My best formalization of how to express computer science is that it is "applied philosophy": the unification of the ideal with the concrete as a precursor of and mechanism towards the possible and actual manifestation of the unification of all ideals.
It's a great idea but there's an issue... If aware of such a policy, such a spammer could create to accounts. One to simply be a "is my other account banned" validation-only account. The strategy could be more effective if the "invisibility" were applied on an IP basis (all accounts from the communicating from the same IP could also view the comments) or something of the like but that strategy could as easily be subverted by switching IPs. Still, it increases the work required of a spammer and complicates their efforts, so I take it as an overall good method of discouraging spam or at least making it more expensive to spam.
As a new product developer, I use math regularly. Most commonly I have used discrete, set, and stochastic maths. I am glad for the intellectual investments I've made in learning math.
Advice: if nothing else, you should ensure you are able to review and understand the academic presentations of solutions and methods or else you will have excellent solutions that you will not be able to take advantage of. Mathematical theories often describe the "shape" of problems and the factors involved with them as well as the challenges and limits you'll encounter. Without mathematics, you will reduce the top-end of what you can do and reduce your productivity at work. Few can identify it but you will cost massive amounts more for the businesses that hire you. On top of your greater cost, you will have to deal with more of the distracting and non-essential coding that composes the (in my opinion) more boring aspects of the field. Meanwhile, you will move more slowly than the rest of the market and loose any advantage you may have over time.
More personally, studying mathematics you will open up types of thinking and give yourself perspectives you might not otherwise have available. Even if your day to day doesn't require mathematics, you will be better positioned in life if you expend the effort to at least get a cursory understanding.
Keep all your developers focused on the problems you are solving. The really hard problems. And demand clarity in their code and solutions. In the end, the problem is the vehicle towards the value you are producing. Leadership's role is to define and communicate a vision of the value you produce, the engineer's role is to understand that vision before but necessarily thereafter identifying and solving the problems that expose their solutions and result in the delivery of the value.
If process or any other factor of the work place start to reduce developer focus from problem solving you will disable or lose your best people and accumulate slack-jaws. Having a job that actually keeps your brain revved up and challenged on an every day basis is crack to true geeks. Note that the basics like reasonable compensation, a good development machine, and basics like coffee et cetera are important to make sure no issue invades the mind space of your focused problem-solving employees.
Having worked in both a successful startup and a large corporation, this is what seems to hinge or turn any effort in our field.
C'mon now... The economic output of a dystopia is so much drastically lower than that of a utopia that our robotic overlords will never allow one to develop.;-)
Incidentally, if you are interested in financing the development of our robotic overlords, look me up.
Anubi makes some good points. We do have some social patterns that make trying to do the right thing or start something new problematic.
Of course, you are correct too. The only rational response is to stand up and figure out how to work with the world as it exists.
I don't know that you can assume Anubi hasn't pulled up her/his socks and gotten to work. I have for myself pulled myself up from the gutter. Further, the "stop accepting your position as victim and change it" message is one I share with many people as appropriate. It still doesn't change the fact that the world as we create it couldn't be more conducive to doing awesome stuff. It doesn't mean that existence couldn't be a better place than it is or that we couldn't be better to one another. Actually, I'd go further to claim that if we were able to improve the state of existence that we'd all be the better off for it. Mindsets that stop with the "get over it" and "it's good enough" message seem a barrier to achieving a better state for ourselves and seem an acceptance of the victim position, only slightly evolved. I won't presume your position but maybe you should ask: does that description fit your understanding of yourself? And yes, stepping up will cost you some but the dividends will be higher over the long term.
Actually, that is where I'll agree with the sentiment of Stephenson's assertions. A lot of Sci-Fi has focused on the dangers and risks of the future and it has, by this, failed to develop creative imaginings of the positive possibilities and potentials of existence that we could attempt to manifest. While it is important to understand how we could enslave or destroy ourselves in order to understand how to avoid doing so, it is also important not just to poke holes, not only to critique but also to provide solutions and an understanding of what configurations of reality might be plausible improvements over the current state.
Technically, an automated process may have provided the access. It's astute to consider (and even likely) that a non-mechanical process failure may also have been involved. That doesn't change that a bug or other issue in the host's rights provisioning code may have provided the access just as easily.
You appear to falsely believe that we are not machines. Surely, we are the bio-mechanical variety but our machinery learns (or fails to, if you'd like to take the pessimistic view) quite sufficiently, though with limitation.
The knowledge representation and rule based approaches are inherently limited in the sense that you state. That is only a single portion of a much larger field. Would you state the same limitations in regard to the forms that enable your own perception and reaction, "emotional" or otherwise?
All our basic learning functions are derived from emotional responses
The field seems rather convinced that it is a factor of the neural mechanisms that identify regularities and relationships in the environment. Likewise, it seems unprepared to harness those same methods for its purposes. Emotions are but one form of the perception of the environment, not unlike the "thoughts" or more direct perceptions (e.g. you see an object) we also experience. If I twist what I understand to be your meaning then I can state that we agree that the stimuli from the complete environment (including the representations of the environment that the brain provides) and your neural system's processing of it is in fact the basis of human learning. In a simpler and shorter statement: your absorption and comparison of the moments of your existence.
Otherwise, the notion that the abstraction of your sensory and extra-sensory experience is the basis of our learning is but a statement of your direct phenomenological experience.
Agreed about the Narnia series which has received broad attention.
The space trilogy, on the other hand, is a much more mature and much less known but excellent body of work. If the OP had not specified fantasy/sci-fi I'd have tossed out a further dead and forgotten author: Knut Hamsun. More particularly I'd have suggested Growth of the Soil.
Despite the strong presence of dragons in Dragonworld, it is a story that is much more about the evolution and interactions of societies and people. More particularly of a inventor/geek/innovator borne upon society's tides which makes it seem of particular appeal/relevance to the/. crowd.
We all started somewhere and frankly, if this drives some people to better contribute to themselves and the world or even just find the niche in life they've always wanted to be in, we'll have seen an excellent consequence.
A year of independent course work is unlikely to be enough to teach the automata theory/set theory/discrete mathematics/et cetera (ad infinitum) that is vital to developing a core understand of what one is interacting with in professional coding much less the various other "softer" disciplines required to know how to write code of a high level of quality. That said, even with many years of university, employment, and success behind me I am continuously learning, expanding, and refining myself. The risk, of course, is that low quality coders could result.
To counter-balance again, I generally like working on the harder and more interesting problems and this means that team members who are intimidated by those and as a result are happier with their job when doing the work that I do mostly because it needs to get done can be a godsend to my own happiness at work. Developing a mentoring relationship with such individuals has additionally been really gratifying.
ITIL, as mentioned previously does a good job of discussing IT from the perspective of the people that make decisions such as the creation of a new department and how they would prefer to interact with such a department. That said, it is rational only at a large scale where such abstractions are necessary to manage people in the absence of more personal relationships. As such, it can provide you with an understanding that will help you communicate with the decision makers about how your suggested organizational change will serve their purposes.
The following will likely be relatively unintelligible to the powers that be but the reason for rationalizing (or not) the separation of IT into a distinct organizational structure is the separation of concerns (suggested reading). More specifically: the concerns of an IT department are very different than the concerns of an engineering department. In order to better define and understand the IT needs of the organization, a separate organization will serve the purpose of better meeting those needs. Of course the risk of this is that either of the engineering or IT organizations will become blind to the concerns of the other through organizational dysfunction in the form of an "us vs. them" mentality (clearly given some of the comments here, this isn't unreasonable to expect [as you've noted]) or reduced communication and collaboration. Therefore, if such a division is to occur, it will be important to those approving of it that strategies are in place to address such possibilities: that the change will bring greater value to the organization as a whole over the alternative. If the concepts and changes are rolled out properly, the engineers will be glad not to have to deal with the day to day tasks of IT operations as it will free them up to remain more focused on their own concerns and IT can be glad to have independence to do their job well and grow in their ability to do so as well as to gain a distinct voice in the discussion of how to support value creation in the organization.
In such considerations, the size of the organization is key. In small organizations, the greater efficiency of having single individuals playing multiple roles requires the fusion of roles. As organizations grow, the separation of responsibilities that allows those responsibilities to be performed with greater skill, sophistication, and complexity begins to outweigh that initial efficiency. You will have to answer for yourself where your organization falls on the spectrum of size and what the trade offs of separation look like or else you will be unprepared to answer the questions and concerns of your management.
Based on your communication, it would seem that you have already identified some key consequences of the lack of separation and those will serve as good pieces of the rationale you can present. It would also seem that you have established a reasonable amount of trust and authority for yourself with the organization. It will be important that you remember that the things which seem obvious to you are clear in your mind because you think about and deal with them on a regular basis. The people you'll be talking with do not think about or deal with those things and they like it that way. You will be asking them to think about these things that they don't want to think about so it will be key that they feel you've thought through the change to maintain the trust you've built as well as supporting further trust that you are trying to better serve the needs of the organization. Part of that should include being up front about your own desires to head the new department but you'll likely not want to emphasize that too much - the fact that you're developing these ideas and considering these concerns presents you as the natural choice for the position so it will be yours to lose if they buy in to the change.
Best of luck in creating your new position and department as well as supporting your organization's success.
Actually, linearly inseparable functions such as XOR can be learned by biologically plausible networks through the introduction of relatively small biologically inspired alterations of Hebb's rule that take the affects of locationally constrained resources into account (i.e. the availability of the chemical building blocks of neurons [i.e. trophic factors]).
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks! It's nice to start the day with a good laugh.
Among changes in the world that my code has enabled is the quantified reduction of occurrences of neighbor-upon-neighbor violence in Africa.
If your code isn't helping others do better and more effective work, find entertainment to better enable the user's effectiveness in life, or whatever, maybe you should be asking: whose head is up her or his arse? If you aren't creating that kind of value, then while all my clients and customers will continuously grow more effective and wealthy yours will become iteratively more poor and less effective. Suppose you're willing to hazard a guess about the likely impacts that will have on our revenue streams?
Coding is about evolving the activities of humanity and by so doing, directly making the world better.
Where the work of persons can be automated we do so with code in order to allow the attention and creativity that would otherwise be avoided or consumed to be redirected to solve bigger, harder, and more interesting problems to more effectively accomplish our goals, whatever they might be.
Caveats about our lack of understanding about what better might be, et cetera, aside: at least we can provide ourselves more free resources with which to solve and consider such problems.
At least, that is why I code...
It seems a faulty jump to go from the observations that the study participants did not use the two elements of cognition together to the assertion that one cannot use both capacities at the same time. At the very least it should be theoretically possible for neural connectivity to be established between the two sub-networks and as a result to activate both capabilities concurrently. Certainly we should be able to imagine circumstances where having such an ability would be advantageous, such as the processing and understanding of the experience but also wise and healthy reaction within the emotional interactions we engage in with our loved ones.
Nerds are commonly arrogant in their youth. We pay attention to how things actually work and drive towards accuracy and truth/fact. In a sense it is the expression of dominance as a counter to the manners in which we are not dominant and this has been rubbed in our faces through a lack of mates, popularity, et cetera. However, it is an artifact of youth as a true nerd will quickly identify the limitations of his or her knowledge and thereby gain humility, will also gather a peer group in which they are not always the brightest and thereby gain the insight of having been a big fish in a small pond only en route to the ocean amongst the whales, and will experience the failures and manifested risks of arrogance learning to function in a world of people where our interests are joined and others have decisions.
Our strengths are long term in nature and, of course, not all of us successfully develop. We fail to continue growing and developing at our own peril. At the same time, the majority of our world's leaders and powerful people were once considered nerds.
As a reformed previous "brilliant jerk" one of the things I came to realize was that during that time my jerkishness was motivated by being requested and incented, even required, toward such behaviors but to be straightforward, it was also a result of my limitations of understanding and experience in working with people. What I needed was someone to help me understand the social side of the business and the greater value and advantage I could drive through greater diplomacy, empathy, and constructivity within my communications.
You might just find that you evolve the individual as well as the culture of the company while demonstrating loyalty and caring to and for your employees while retaining the talent and capability, accelerating broader productivity, and improving morale.
Mathematics is most basically a field encompassing the methods and concerns of quantification.
The field of computer science has largely been developed and expanded by mathematicians but I can only accept your assertion if you can demonstrate mathematics ability to address matters such as semantics or all of the other myriad concerns that are generally accepted aspects of the informatics field. Mathematics is a terribly handy and important tool in the toolbox but just one. The general companion idiom you may recognize is that if all you have is a hammer, the world is composed of nails.
My best formalization of how to express computer science is that it is "applied philosophy": the unification of the ideal with the concrete as a precursor of and mechanism towards the possible and actual manifestation of the unification of all ideals.
It's a great idea but there's an issue... If aware of such a policy, such a spammer could create to accounts. One to simply be a "is my other account banned" validation-only account. The strategy could be more effective if the "invisibility" were applied on an IP basis (all accounts from the communicating from the same IP could also view the comments) or something of the like but that strategy could as easily be subverted by switching IPs. Still, it increases the work required of a spammer and complicates their efforts, so I take it as an overall good method of discouraging spam or at least making it more expensive to spam.
As a new product developer, I use math regularly. Most commonly I have used discrete, set, and stochastic maths. I am glad for the intellectual investments I've made in learning math.
Advice: if nothing else, you should ensure you are able to review and understand the academic presentations of solutions and methods or else you will have excellent solutions that you will not be able to take advantage of. Mathematical theories often describe the "shape" of problems and the factors involved with them as well as the challenges and limits you'll encounter. Without mathematics, you will reduce the top-end of what you can do and reduce your productivity at work. Few can identify it but you will cost massive amounts more for the businesses that hire you. On top of your greater cost, you will have to deal with more of the distracting and non-essential coding that composes the (in my opinion) more boring aspects of the field. Meanwhile, you will move more slowly than the rest of the market and loose any advantage you may have over time.
More personally, studying mathematics you will open up types of thinking and give yourself perspectives you might not otherwise have available. Even if your day to day doesn't require mathematics, you will be better positioned in life if you expend the effort to at least get a cursory understanding.
Keep all your developers focused on the problems you are solving. The really hard problems. And demand clarity in their code and solutions. In the end, the problem is the vehicle towards the value you are producing. Leadership's role is to define and communicate a vision of the value you produce, the engineer's role is to understand that vision before but necessarily thereafter identifying and solving the problems that expose their solutions and result in the delivery of the value.
If process or any other factor of the work place start to reduce developer focus from problem solving you will disable or lose your best people and accumulate slack-jaws. Having a job that actually keeps your brain revved up and challenged on an every day basis is crack to true geeks. Note that the basics like reasonable compensation, a good development machine, and basics like coffee et cetera are important to make sure no issue invades the mind space of your focused problem-solving employees.
Having worked in both a successful startup and a large corporation, this is what seems to hinge or turn any effort in our field.
C'mon now... The economic output of a dystopia is so much drastically lower than that of a utopia that our robotic overlords will never allow one to develop. ;-)
Incidentally, if you are interested in financing the development of our robotic overlords, look me up.
Anubi makes some good points. We do have some social patterns that make trying to do the right thing or start something new problematic.
Of course, you are correct too. The only rational response is to stand up and figure out how to work with the world as it exists.
I don't know that you can assume Anubi hasn't pulled up her/his socks and gotten to work. I have for myself pulled myself up from the gutter. Further, the "stop accepting your position as victim and change it" message is one I share with many people as appropriate. It still doesn't change the fact that the world as we create it couldn't be more conducive to doing awesome stuff. It doesn't mean that existence couldn't be a better place than it is or that we couldn't be better to one another. Actually, I'd go further to claim that if we were able to improve the state of existence that we'd all be the better off for it. Mindsets that stop with the "get over it" and "it's good enough" message seem a barrier to achieving a better state for ourselves and seem an acceptance of the victim position, only slightly evolved. I won't presume your position but maybe you should ask: does that description fit your understanding of yourself? And yes, stepping up will cost you some but the dividends will be higher over the long term.
Actually, that is where I'll agree with the sentiment of Stephenson's assertions. A lot of Sci-Fi has focused on the dangers and risks of the future and it has, by this, failed to develop creative imaginings of the positive possibilities and potentials of existence that we could attempt to manifest. While it is important to understand how we could enslave or destroy ourselves in order to understand how to avoid doing so, it is also important not just to poke holes, not only to critique but also to provide solutions and an understanding of what configurations of reality might be plausible improvements over the current state.
Technically, an automated process may have provided the access. It's astute to consider (and even likely) that a non-mechanical process failure may also have been involved. That doesn't change that a bug or other issue in the host's rights provisioning code may have provided the access just as easily.
Strongly agreed. GoScreen is awesome.
The knowledge representation and rule based approaches are inherently limited in the sense that you state. That is only a single portion of a much larger field. Would you state the same limitations in regard to the forms that enable your own perception and reaction, "emotional" or otherwise?
All our basic learning functions are derived from emotional responses
The field seems rather convinced that it is a factor of the neural mechanisms that identify regularities and relationships in the environment. Likewise, it seems unprepared to harness those same methods for its purposes. Emotions are but one form of the perception of the environment, not unlike the "thoughts" or more direct perceptions (e.g. you see an object) we also experience. If I twist what I understand to be your meaning then I can state that we agree that the stimuli from the complete environment (including the representations of the environment that the brain provides) and your neural system's processing of it is in fact the basis of human learning. In a simpler and shorter statement: your absorption and comparison of the moments of your existence.
Otherwise, the notion that the abstraction of your sensory and extra-sensory experience is the basis of our learning is but a statement of your direct phenomenological experience.
Agreed about the Narnia series which has received broad attention.
/. crowd.
The space trilogy, on the other hand, is a much more mature and much less known but excellent body of work. If the OP had not specified fantasy/sci-fi I'd have tossed out a further dead and forgotten author: Knut Hamsun. More particularly I'd have suggested Growth of the Soil.
Despite the strong presence of dragons in Dragonworld, it is a story that is much more about the evolution and interactions of societies and people. More particularly of a inventor/geek/innovator borne upon society's tides which makes it seem of particular appeal/relevance to the
http://www.amazon.com/Dragonworld-Byron-Preiss/dp/0671039075
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Silent_Planet
We all started somewhere and frankly, if this drives some people to better contribute to themselves and the world or even just find the niche in life they've always wanted to be in, we'll have seen an excellent consequence.
A year of independent course work is unlikely to be enough to teach the automata theory/set theory/discrete mathematics/et cetera (ad infinitum) that is vital to developing a core understand of what one is interacting with in professional coding much less the various other "softer" disciplines required to know how to write code of a high level of quality. That said, even with many years of university, employment, and success behind me I am continuously learning, expanding, and refining myself. The risk, of course, is that low quality coders could result.
To counter-balance again, I generally like working on the harder and more interesting problems and this means that team members who are intimidated by those and as a result are happier with their job when doing the work that I do mostly because it needs to get done can be a godsend to my own happiness at work. Developing a mentoring relationship with such individuals has additionally been really gratifying.
ITIL, as mentioned previously does a good job of discussing IT from the perspective of the people that make decisions such as the creation of a new department and how they would prefer to interact with such a department. That said, it is rational only at a large scale where such abstractions are necessary to manage people in the absence of more personal relationships. As such, it can provide you with an understanding that will help you communicate with the decision makers about how your suggested organizational change will serve their purposes.
The following will likely be relatively unintelligible to the powers that be but the reason for rationalizing (or not) the separation of IT into a distinct organizational structure is the separation of concerns (suggested reading). More specifically: the concerns of an IT department are very different than the concerns of an engineering department. In order to better define and understand the IT needs of the organization, a separate organization will serve the purpose of better meeting those needs. Of course the risk of this is that either of the engineering or IT organizations will become blind to the concerns of the other through organizational dysfunction in the form of an "us vs. them" mentality (clearly given some of the comments here, this isn't unreasonable to expect [as you've noted]) or reduced communication and collaboration. Therefore, if such a division is to occur, it will be important to those approving of it that strategies are in place to address such possibilities: that the change will bring greater value to the organization as a whole over the alternative. If the concepts and changes are rolled out properly, the engineers will be glad not to have to deal with the day to day tasks of IT operations as it will free them up to remain more focused on their own concerns and IT can be glad to have independence to do their job well and grow in their ability to do so as well as to gain a distinct voice in the discussion of how to support value creation in the organization.
In such considerations, the size of the organization is key. In small organizations, the greater efficiency of having single individuals playing multiple roles requires the fusion of roles. As organizations grow, the separation of responsibilities that allows those responsibilities to be performed with greater skill, sophistication, and complexity begins to outweigh that initial efficiency. You will have to answer for yourself where your organization falls on the spectrum of size and what the trade offs of separation look like or else you will be unprepared to answer the questions and concerns of your management.
Based on your communication, it would seem that you have already identified some key consequences of the lack of separation and those will serve as good pieces of the rationale you can present. It would also seem that you have established a reasonable amount of trust and authority for yourself with the organization. It will be important that you remember that the things which seem obvious to you are clear in your mind because you think about and deal with them on a regular basis. The people you'll be talking with do not think about or deal with those things and they like it that way. You will be asking them to think about these things that they don't want to think about so it will be key that they feel you've thought through the change to maintain the trust you've built as well as supporting further trust that you are trying to better serve the needs of the organization. Part of that should include being up front about your own desires to head the new department but you'll likely not want to emphasize that too much - the fact that you're developing these ideas and considering these concerns presents you as the natural choice for the position so it will be yours to lose if they buy in to the change.
Best of luck in creating your new position and department as well as supporting your organization's success.
Actually, linearly inseparable functions such as XOR can be learned by biologically plausible networks through the introduction of relatively small biologically inspired alterations of Hebb's rule that take the affects of locationally constrained resources into account (i.e. the availability of the chemical building blocks of neurons [i.e. trophic factors]).
The following has been useful in a classroom setting: http://scratch.mit.edu/