If the software developers in the new job are working like they're on a production line, then there's probably some truth to those claims. However, such jobs are easily sent overseas where labour is cheaper. There's real tangible value to new team members who have experience from elsewhere, i.e. different strategies, perspectives, & knowledge, that can get whole teams to be more productive in both the shorter & longer term. Citation? Yeah, way back from 1973: Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
You think the UK govt. does anything without getting consent from the US Department of State first? It might even have been a Google Jigsaw employee/associate/consultant in the US DoS (they have a very cosy relationship) who gave the go ahead.
There's nothing to understand about "wealth inequality." It's a bogus concept.
Some people can barely afford to live on their incomes, while others have huge amounts of inherited wealth and get $millions for doing very little, e.g. from shares that they own and/or rents/fees that they collect (usually that someone collects for them). That doesn't sound very equal to me, or am I missing something?
When the cost of labor increases, the price of goods and services follows soon after.
You're assuming that prices are determined by cost of production. They're not. There are multiple influences and two of the stronger ones are perceived value (what people are willing to pay) and disposable income (what people are able to pay). The availability of personal credit tends to have a stronger effect on prices of goods and services than the levels of salaries.
You could have made a more convincing argument that more disposable income among the lower waged could lead to inflation but that would be a logical argument and economics doesn't work that way. It's in the social sciences and psychology where the most significant considerations are how people tend to think and behave under particular circumstances, and people tend to think and behave in some very surprising ways. It's complex and there's no way to make logical predictions like the ones above. There's only observations and probabilities extrapolated from them.
In practice, what usually happens is that the owners/shareholders get a smaller share of the profits.
You won't find the problem in employment statistics. Business has to run and will do what it needs to in order to keep running. You'll find the problem in the cost of goods and services, and ultimately the value of a dollar. In other words, inflationary effects and cost of living increases.
You misunderstand the concept of wealth inequality. If low-wage workers earn more in relation to the median wage, it decreases the inequality gap. Also, it means that low-wage workers have more disposable income to invest in things like consumer goods, eating out, & training & education to get better jobs. In the end, everyone benefits.
Left/right hemisphere dominance in the brain is a myth. We use all of the brain all of the time. Different areas are associated with particular tasks but each region is almost always associated with more than one task, e.g. Broca's area is famously associated with grammar, but also with action recognition & gestures.
Critical period hypothesis is controversial & probably not true, except for accents.
Bilingualism doesn't prevent the onset of Alzheimer's, it's just that the symptoms are less apparent in bilingual patients because they compensate for the effects better.
Bilingualism is no more cognitively beneficial than exercise, playing board games, or socialising, i.e. there's nothing special about bilingualism.
And they managed to pack those errors and more into just 5 minutes.
All this competition between subscription services means that a lot of great content that people want to see gets made. That's great for us but unsustainable as we can see from the amount of debt they're racking up. It looks like they're all going for market dominance or broke. This isn't going to last & we'll soon be going back to reality TV, game shows, & re-runs.
However, all these competing services mean that the good TV & movies that we might want to see are fragmented across several providers & also vary from country to country, e.g. Canada only gets a fraction of Netflix's catalogue, because of licensing restrictions.
I say our best bet under these circumstances is a VPN & piracy. Enjoy it all while it's good!
The irony is that what The Onion publishes is more valid & evidence informed than TED Talks. The amount of feel-good but meaningless edu-babble, outdated & wrong theories, i.e. They contradict current knowledge in neurosci, cogsci, & Ed research, & just plain edu-quackery that TED Talks put out should have them banned from any education system.
For example, Sir Ken Robinson has given 3 TED Talks. He talks about creativity as if it's a generic skill (It isn't), claims that schools kill creativity (They don't), & offers no concrete, falsifiable alternatives to current educational practices. In fact, he isn't an expert in education at all; he did his PhD in drama studies & knows little about the science of learning & teaching. If he did, he wouldn't spout the feel-good nonsense that he does.
Sounds like they want to crack the Winograd Schema Challenge, i.e. questions with linguistic ambiguities that require the reader to resolve the ambiguities by referring to relevant background information: https://cs.nyu.edu/faculty/dav...
Now we can see a return to the good old days when people used to paint their homes with lead paint. Yes! You too will soon be able to paint lead on your walls for all the family to enjoy. The EPA says it was mistaken and it's perfectly safe now. Paint your walls with lead paint soon!:))) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Oh, and in Flint Michigan and many other parts of the USA, neighbourhoods can start drinking the tap water again because lead is safe!
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Greenhouse gases add heat energy (and thus average temperature) to the Earth's global atmosphere.
These are completely different things.
Attempting to conflate them is pro-fossil-fuel FUD.
What do you mean it's not true?! Don't you know what happened to Holland? It was once covered in windmills which brought on near catastrophic sea level rise which threatened to inundate the whole country. Wind turbines will be the end of us all! [/end sarcasm]
I think the AC is saying that experts often, but not always, make lousy teachers. BTW, someone with an M.Ed or D.Ed isn't necessarily a good teacher either. It just means they spent some years studying teaching, not actually doing it and learning how to do it themselves, i.e. M.Eds & D.Eds are theoretical and not practice based. A description of 3 (out of 16) of the characteristics of good teachers follows:
However, this is only part of the story; there’s another one! John Hattie (2003) analysed the difference between expert and ‘ordinary’ teachers. He determined that they differ in 16 ways and there are three that really distinguish them if it comes to learning effectiveness. He found that experts:
- set challenging goals for students and give them difficult tasks to challenge them;
- have a deep conceptual knowledge of the learning content, didactics, and how people learn. As a consequence, their knowledge is better organised and they’re better able to transfer and explain the connections between new content and students’ pre knowledge. They’re also better at connecting learning content with other topics in the curriculum.
- are better at monitoring problems that students have and give them more relevant and useful feedback.
So yes, deep subject matter knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. Having tutors who are experts in their subject matter but not good teachers, as is common in higher education where the only recognised qualifications are Masters and Doctorates, means that only a small minority of students can learn well in that environment. Prestigious universities compensate for this through selective admission. In other words, only accepting students who are likely to succeed without expert tutoring. MOOCs deal with this by accepting a 95% failure rate (and those students who succeed on MOOCs are almost always already highly qualified).
No, not evil, just an incompetent useful idiot. It's the people he's working with that are evil and competent. I'm sure Trump is thinking, "Poisoning Americans is fine because it's only the shithole towns where poor people live that'll get poisoned." That's just part of his narcissistic, egocentric, sadistic personality that makes him unfit to be in any position of power, let alone a national leader.
Unfit for military service means that a person is so unhealthy that even with exercise and high-quality nourishment, they cannot recover to the point of being fit enough for active service. This often means for things like malnutrition resulting in rickets, severe scurvy, beriberi, pellagra, osteoporosis, etc..
Supportive health care has gotten MASSIVELY better since 1918, astronomically so. A similarly virulent strain would be bad, but nothing like as bad as it was, because a lot of people back then died due to lack of even basic supportive care.
Of course, no one said it had to be the same level of virulence, it could be much worse, so ignoring the possibility doesn't make sense.
Yes, and not to mention the fact that, back 1918, there was extreme wealth inequality and the majority of people were poor and malnourished. It wasn't until after WWII that governments started to take public health and nutrition seriously because they realised that far too many military-age men we too unfit to fight for them in wars.
Public nutrition and health have got much better since 1918 but it is starting to look like it's starting to slip back with obesity, heart disease, child poverty, etc., making a lot of people very unhealthy and vulnerable to disease. Oh, there's a lot more elderly and infirm people around these days who are particularly vulnerable to the flu.
It sounds like the fossil fuel industry is putting out $millions in research grants to anyone who can produce headline-grabbing technologies that make fossil fuels sound less bad. And I guess universities are stepping up to cash in on these research grants. Who knows, maybe something good will come out of this through serendipity? Perhaps some useful scientific discovery?
Because MIT's "plan" shifts a cost of $3-5 million from the school buses to an order of magnitude more money from the parents as they try to adjust their lives and work schedules to fit the changes. That was a really shitty algorithm they came up with.
Why is it that US senators are so reluctant to use their official email accounts for official business? Why don't they want those email exchanges to go down on public record?
...if it's too important to risk being ransom-wared, doxed, or generally abused in some way. If you must share files on a network with colleagues/friends/family, do it properly with a server, appropriate software, and hardened security.
Pushing CS in secondary education is all opportunity cost and little to no benefit. They're better off learning more about human languages, mathematics, sciences, arts, and humanities because they're much more useful for most post-secondary education options. Secondary school CS is useless for anything other than post-secondary education CS.
Slashdot Mirror
If the software developers in the new job are working like they're on a production line, then there's probably some truth to those claims. However, such jobs are easily sent overseas where labour is cheaper. There's real tangible value to new team members who have experience from elsewhere, i.e. different strategies, perspectives, & knowledge, that can get whole teams to be more productive in both the shorter & longer term. Citation? Yeah, way back from 1973: Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
You think the UK govt. does anything without getting consent from the US Department of State first? It might even have been a Google Jigsaw employee/associate/consultant in the US DoS (they have a very cosy relationship) who gave the go ahead.
There's nothing to understand about "wealth inequality." It's a bogus concept.
Some people can barely afford to live on their incomes, while others have huge amounts of inherited wealth and get $millions for doing very little, e.g. from shares that they own and/or rents/fees that they collect (usually that someone collects for them). That doesn't sound very equal to me, or am I missing something?
When the cost of labor increases, the price of goods and services follows soon after.
You're assuming that prices are determined by cost of production. They're not. There are multiple influences and two of the stronger ones are perceived value (what people are willing to pay) and disposable income (what people are able to pay). The availability of personal credit tends to have a stronger effect on prices of goods and services than the levels of salaries.
You could have made a more convincing argument that more disposable income among the lower waged could lead to inflation but that would be a logical argument and economics doesn't work that way. It's in the social sciences and psychology where the most significant considerations are how people tend to think and behave under particular circumstances, and people tend to think and behave in some very surprising ways. It's complex and there's no way to make logical predictions like the ones above. There's only observations and probabilities extrapolated from them.
In practice, what usually happens is that the owners/shareholders get a smaller share of the profits.
You won't find the problem in employment statistics. Business has to run and will do what it needs to in order to keep running. You'll find the problem in the cost of goods and services, and ultimately the value of a dollar. In other words, inflationary effects and cost of living increases.
You misunderstand the concept of wealth inequality. If low-wage workers earn more in relation to the median wage, it decreases the inequality gap. Also, it means that low-wage workers have more disposable income to invest in things like consumer goods, eating out, & training & education to get better jobs. In the end, everyone benefits.
Here's an example of a TED-Ed talk, "The benefits of a bilingual brain - Mia Nacamulli": https://ed.ted.com/lessons/how...
Left/right hemisphere dominance in the brain is a myth. We use all of the brain all of the time. Different areas are associated with particular tasks but each region is almost always associated with more than one task, e.g. Broca's area is famously associated with grammar, but also with action recognition & gestures.
Critical period hypothesis is controversial & probably not true, except for accents.
Bilingualism doesn't prevent the onset of Alzheimer's, it's just that the symptoms are less apparent in bilingual patients because they compensate for the effects better.
Bilingualism is no more cognitively beneficial than exercise, playing board games, or socialising, i.e. there's nothing special about bilingualism.
And they managed to pack those errors and more into just 5 minutes.
No, you can get more accurate, comprehensive, coherent, peer-reviewed information for free from Open Textbooks, e.g. https://open.bccampus.ca/find-... & https://openstax.org/subjects
All this competition between subscription services means that a lot of great content that people want to see gets made. That's great for us but unsustainable as we can see from the amount of debt they're racking up. It looks like they're all going for market dominance or broke. This isn't going to last & we'll soon be going back to reality TV, game shows, & re-runs.
However, all these competing services mean that the good TV & movies that we might want to see are fragmented across several providers & also vary from country to country, e.g. Canada only gets a fraction of Netflix's catalogue, because of licensing restrictions.
I say our best bet under these circumstances is a VPN & piracy. Enjoy it all while it's good!
The irony is that what The Onion publishes is more valid & evidence informed than TED Talks. The amount of feel-good but meaningless edu-babble, outdated & wrong theories, i.e. They contradict current knowledge in neurosci, cogsci, & Ed research, & just plain edu-quackery that TED Talks put out should have them banned from any education system.
For example, Sir Ken Robinson has given 3 TED Talks. He talks about creativity as if it's a generic skill (It isn't), claims that schools kill creativity (They don't), & offers no concrete, falsifiable alternatives to current educational practices. In fact, he isn't an expert in education at all; he did his PhD in drama studies & knows little about the science of learning & teaching. If he did, he wouldn't spout the feel-good nonsense that he does.
Sounds like they want to crack the Winograd Schema Challenge, i.e. questions with linguistic ambiguities that require the reader to resolve the ambiguities by referring to relevant background information: https://cs.nyu.edu/faculty/dav...
Now we can see a return to the good old days when people used to paint their homes with lead paint. Yes! You too will soon be able to paint lead on your walls for all the family to enjoy. The EPA says it was mistaken and it's perfectly safe now. Paint your walls with lead paint soon! :))) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Oh, and in Flint Michigan and many other parts of the USA, neighbourhoods can start drinking the tap water again because lead is safe!
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold. Greenhouse gases add heat energy (and thus average temperature) to the Earth's global atmosphere. These are completely different things. Attempting to conflate them is pro-fossil-fuel FUD.
What do you mean it's not true?! Don't you know what happened to Holland? It was once covered in windmills which brought on near catastrophic sea level rise which threatened to inundate the whole country. Wind turbines will be the end of us all! [/end sarcasm]
I think the AC is saying that experts often, but not always, make lousy teachers. BTW, someone with an M.Ed or D.Ed isn't necessarily a good teacher either. It just means they spent some years studying teaching, not actually doing it and learning how to do it themselves, i.e. M.Eds & D.Eds are theoretical and not practice based. A description of 3 (out of 16) of the characteristics of good teachers follows:
However, this is only part of the story; there’s another one! John Hattie (2003) analysed the difference between expert and ‘ordinary’ teachers. He determined that they differ in 16 ways and there are three that really distinguish them if it comes to learning effectiveness. He found that experts:
Quoted from: https://3starlearningexperienc...
So yes, deep subject matter knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. Having tutors who are experts in their subject matter but not good teachers, as is common in higher education where the only recognised qualifications are Masters and Doctorates, means that only a small minority of students can learn well in that environment. Prestigious universities compensate for this through selective admission. In other words, only accepting students who are likely to succeed without expert tutoring. MOOCs deal with this by accepting a 95% failure rate (and those students who succeed on MOOCs are almost always already highly qualified).
No, not evil, just an incompetent useful idiot. It's the people he's working with that are evil and competent. I'm sure Trump is thinking, "Poisoning Americans is fine because it's only the shithole towns where poor people live that'll get poisoned." That's just part of his narcissistic, egocentric, sadistic personality that makes him unfit to be in any position of power, let alone a national leader.
Unfit for military service means that a person is so unhealthy that even with exercise and high-quality nourishment, they cannot recover to the point of being fit enough for active service. This often means for things like malnutrition resulting in rickets, severe scurvy, beriberi, pellagra, osteoporosis, etc..
Supportive health care has gotten MASSIVELY better since 1918, astronomically so. A similarly virulent strain would be bad, but nothing like as bad as it was, because a lot of people back then died due to lack of even basic supportive care.
Of course, no one said it had to be the same level of virulence, it could be much worse, so ignoring the possibility doesn't make sense.
Yes, and not to mention the fact that, back 1918, there was extreme wealth inequality and the majority of people were poor and malnourished. It wasn't until after WWII that governments started to take public health and nutrition seriously because they realised that far too many military-age men we too unfit to fight for them in wars.
Public nutrition and health have got much better since 1918 but it is starting to look like it's starting to slip back with obesity, heart disease, child poverty, etc., making a lot of people very unhealthy and vulnerable to disease. Oh, there's a lot more elderly and infirm people around these days who are particularly vulnerable to the flu.
It sounds like the fossil fuel industry is putting out $millions in research grants to anyone who can produce headline-grabbing technologies that make fossil fuels sound less bad. And I guess universities are stepping up to cash in on these research grants. Who knows, maybe something good will come out of this through serendipity? Perhaps some useful scientific discovery?
Because MIT's "plan" shifts a cost of $3-5 million from the school buses to an order of magnitude more money from the parents as they try to adjust their lives and work schedules to fit the changes. That was a really shitty algorithm they came up with.
The question was rhetorical.
Why is it that US senators are so reluctant to use their official email accounts for official business? Why don't they want those email exchanges to go down on public record?
Do you mean that the USB drive that periodically use to back-up my laptop is "on the network"? -- I find your definition overly broad and unhelpful.
...of electronic paper. Imagine all those extra virtual pages being needlessly created and clogging up desktop trash cans.
...if it's too important to risk being ransom-wared, doxed, or generally abused in some way. If you must share files on a network with colleagues/friends/family, do it properly with a server, appropriate software, and hardened security.
... If you can take over the FCC, you can get away with offering less for more. That's kind of the point.
The Republican party has long been owned by Telco's, it seems.
I thought that deregulation and doing away with red tape was the Republican's ideology. Oh, wait, isn't that de facto what the Democrats do too?
The big telecoms monopolies aren't even trying, now that they've pwned the FCC.
Pushing CS in secondary education is all opportunity cost and little to no benefit. They're better off learning more about human languages, mathematics, sciences, arts, and humanities because they're much more useful for most post-secondary education options. Secondary school CS is useless for anything other than post-secondary education CS.