Actually, the irony is that in some third world countries the middle class can live even better than in the United States. Being poor really sucks, but a class of working professionals are emerging. Throw in a drastically reduced cost of living and you've got an up and coming middle class.
This is assuming one has a survey knowledge of the sciences. Thanks, to MIT's OCW and webcast.berkeley.edu (among other various colleges) you can find material on the introductory level for everything.
Before you judge the OP too hard, remember that learning (especially the autodidactic kind) should be fun. Not everyone wants to have gun powder skills +5. For whatever it's worth I agree with you, but without a basic knowledge of chemistry, the study of gun powder and munitions is going to be superficial at best.
What usually ends up happening, at larger universities, is that computational mathematics is placed under the field of pure or abstract mathematics (think Erdos style graph theory/combinatorics) where it's so pure as to be painful to a theoretical computer scientist, it enters into a discrete mathematics track (i.e. Penn, Virginia Tech have such programs), or in the rare but perhaps most useful instances it ends up being part of 'applied mathematics' (think MIT, CalTech) where discrete mathematicians work on real world problems. On the other hand, computer science departments have been making the move to schools of engineering. As a result, you've gotten this bastardized CS curriculum. CS departments tend not to require co-ops. CS departments shun the education about specific tools. Senior projects are weak, if non-existant and CS majors are viewed as wannabe engineers. CE or EECS curriculums are slightly better. Did I mention that MIS degrees are viewed as the equivalent as CS degrees by most people. Who needs compiler design anyway... (please not the sarcasm of my statement).
.NET is without question the more marketable choice. However, there are other factors to look at. How stable are these companies? How well do they follow various software methodologies? Which company has the more competent or scrupulous managers?
Is this Perl shop just using Perl? Do they use web services or RPCs with their web apps? What kind of database do they use on the backend? Perl isn't too marketable in and of itself. However, Perl with PL/SQL might be. Maybe they need some sort of business logic written as well. I've never seen any serious software shop run 100% on Perl.
Also, if you become a real Perl guru, there's some marketability there. Of course, you need to write articles, contribute to projects, and possibly write a book, but it can be done.
Incidentally, there's something to be said if you've got two good job offers. Your skills seem pretty marketable. Lastly, there's something to be said for having fun at your job.
Most of the script-kiddie hacking that businesses worry about could easily be perpetrated by the average IT professional. A good sysadmin or software engineer, if unethical, is a lot more dangerous than your average (ugh, I hate to use this term) 'hacker'. Sheesh, I'd be worried about more worried about the guy who reads Stevens books on Unix and TCP/IP than someone reading a book on rootkits.
Incidentally, I'm a little ashamed to admit this, but I once picked up a book on rootkits for Windows because the cover art caught my eye. I had some experience with Windows system programming and I never got a handle (pun intended!!) on the NT kernel. Thinking there might be some great 'black magic' in this rootkit book, I sat down with a cup of coffee and began to read. You know what I realized, I was impressed with the amount of time the authors took to research the material but I realized that the book was nothing more than professional script kiddie. It didn't even contain a good explanation of Windows Driver Development Kit. I figured I'd be better off picking up some documentation from MSDN and tinkering myself. In short, I felt the material was lacking a professional engineering polish. It read like script kiddie. Fortunately your average C++ programmer (outside of Russia:)) is a little more ethical and doesn't spend time contemplating how to ruin your computer.
Maybe you should give them a challenging problem and let them write the answer in pascalian like psuedo code (or the language of their choice).
I've had to write code in C++, C#, Java, and Perl, not to mention numerous 'scripting languages' (from PL/SQL to Javascript). From what I can tell, I'm not alone. Can I whip out a compiler ready solution in any given language? No. Can I whip out a pseudocode solution to a complex problem? Sure. Can I translate it into code? I've been doing it for years. Heck, at least pick a language for the interview and let me know ahead of time so I can brush up. I tend to be an expert at one language at a time. I get rusty if I don't write code in a given language after a while.
I've found that being a good programmer has more to do with proper using design methodology than being a syntax monkey (although that helps).
What would a 'superstar' programmer be doing writing code for a website? At best you got some mildly interesting workflow and collaboration tools and a simple search engine. It's not like they're looking for a kernel hacker or creating a new graphics engine. Incidentally, I think John Carmack has a couple rockets to launch, so he's a little busy.
I've created a short list of cool areas for a programmer to work in: search engines voice recognition (some good libraries already exist) optical character recognition computer vision graphics engines/visualization tools scientific computing (especially biology) data mining kernel hacking
The not-so-cool list: workflow/collaboration/document management data shoveling yet another web app, with yet another J2EE.NETerific framework
Yeah, I know this a pretty bitter post, but sheesh.... It's not like they need a real 'superstar' programmer. They need a GOOD web developer. Someone you can write clean code, prehaps proficient in the agile methodologies. They don't need a top-notch programmer.
She probably grew up in NYC. Well, that explains quite a bit. Child prodigies are always unique. As far as the other posters go, it's not that you CAN'T do good work at a small school. It's just very hard. The classes aren't as rigourous and the environment is a bit depressing.
Yeah, so. You're using the great outlier to argue against a statistical trend. Frankly, Walter Pitts never had a formal education either. I think his work is more profound. Incidentally, one of the other posters noted she was a child prodigy. This explains the abberation.
Looking at Lehigh University's Math department website, this woman got her PhD at
Ph.D., Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, 1978.
While she seems to have some interesting research, it just seems odd that a mathematician on the verge of solving one of the great outstanding problems in mathematics attended such a no name school. Does anyone know something about the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn that I don't?
Yeah, learning how to wrap your head around problems that are bigger than a couple of good 'hacking' sessions is a real skill. Plus, it's HIGHLY marketable. You just have to learn how to advertise yourself.
Recently, I ran across Marvin Minsky's 'Society of Mind' in a psychology section of the library. At first, I thought it was just a poorly placed book, but then I realized most of the content of the book had very little in common with the AI books I've seen used by CS departments. Most AI courses are highly synthesized garbage. They don't really teach probability/statistics (they've got a department for that), they don't really teach logic (they got 2 departments for that), they don't teach you about linguistics, physiology,.... Well, you get the idea. Knuth's book is fairly similar. Most algorithm books don't bother to implement their own instruction set. Aside from being a more 'mathematically elegant' book, Knuth realizes architecture and language design play a role in writing fast code as well. If I wanted to be a great computer scientist, I'd study Math, EE, and Cognitive Science and take a Algorithms class for fun. IIRC, Minsky and Knuth both have Math PhDs.
Why is it that every IQ test looks like it came out a mathematician's head? Half the problems on any IQ test tend to focus on algebra, combinatorics, number theory, and the tiniest bits of analysis.
Incidentally, I'd hate to see the topology questions on an IQ test. Maybe it would determine the likelihood of a mental disorder.
I'm a student in Math and Physics whose spent several years working as a Software Engineer. I thought about becoming a quant and have spent some time researching how to get a job in the field. With this said, I present to you the results of my investigation. I don't claim to be an expert. However, my opinion is free, so take it as you will.
You've got a foot in the door... The fact that you work for a bank is good. It may help you get a leg up on getting into a graduate program. Any experience you can get on a trading floor or working as a quant will be golden on your application. The key to the best Finance programs is that they want a high employment rate among their graduates. Pedigree is good. Experience is better. If you're an IT grunt at a place like Goldman Sachs, you practically halfway there.
Math, math, and more math... If you're going the quant route, you need some math. You need to be conversant in Probability, Mathematical Statistics, Stochastic Calculus, and Information Theory.* There's a reason they hire Physics PhDs (the Ivy League kind) to do work as a quant. Realizing that the pool of disgruntled, yet brilliant physicists is fairly small another entry track among the professional Master's programs in Mathematical Finance has emerged.
Economics and Finance is good too... If you're going to work on Wall St. you might actually want to know a little something about the market itself. Frankly, I can't imagine how someone could become a trader without some knowledge of economics. Most of the graduate programs seems to be unconcerned with your knowledge of this going into their programs. It seems that math is the ultimate litmus test for acceptance (whether this is good or bad is another question). I guess they figure they can "teach" you the rest.
Pedigree is king... U. of Chicago, NYU, Columbia, Stanford, CMU, among others have decent Mathematical Finance/Financial Engineering/Computational Finance degree programs. Many of these programs can be completed part-time. Also, Stanford has a certificate program in Finance that you can complete via distance learning. From what I can tell, the certificate program is essentially a couple of core courses from the graduate program.
Network, network, network SIAM has a Financial Mathematics fair every year. Look it up on the web. Put on a nice suit, polish up your resume, and go to it. Frankly, just taking the step of showing up with some intelligent questions, you bound to get some good insight into the profession.
Any responses/corrections are quite welcome. Like I said, I'm just an amateur myself -- so YMMV.
*Information theory is probably not a hard requirement. Information theory has always fascinated me and I've always been interested in Statistical Physics, Complex Systems, and AIT anyway. On a unrelated note, I've always wondered why Physicists are looked as great quants, when it seems the work smacks of being a good applied statistician.
Re:PHP Security in 5 sentences, Not 500 Pages
on
Pro PHP Security
·
· Score: 1
How many effective SQL injection attacks have there been? Every time someone shows me an example of a SQL injection attack, it seems a bit contrived.
Take the following as an example:
bad_string="SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id=" + BAR_DATA_GOES_HERE EXEC(bad_string)
Wouldn't the attacker need to know your data model pretty well. Wouldn't the attacker need a way of extracting the results of the query through HTTP response. In other words, what does a really good SQL injection attack look like? Sure, I could possibly bring your site to a halt by writing ugly slow queries (e.g. "SELECT * FROM user u1, user u2, user u3...").
I never really understood the page links at the bottom of each 'page' of comments. It doesn't seem to work properly. What's it supposed to do? How does it decide where one page starts and another ends?
The real problem is that shareholders have very little incentive for their company to do well in the long term. If a shareholder makes their quarterly chunk of change and bails before the company goes bad, that's okay with them. Thus, CEOs are paid to be short-sighted. Ultimately these CEOs become glorified fund managers. CEOs are hardly leaders of men.
Frankly, it takes a both technical know how and good business sense to run a company. Steve Jobs had a fortune and a good reputation (of sorts) to leverage when he left Apple. I'm not even sure Wozniak was really looking for more money. Frankly, most of the 'geeks' I know (even the one's in suits) are pretty happy with less. If I had the money, I'd be happy to devote my life to research. Most good managers thrive on managing.
Incidentally, I do agree that a good manager is worth his weight in gold. The problem is that I think we've all seen too many bad managers. When a company isn't making any money and isn't taking the steps towards turning things around, the buck really needs to start at the top. As a software engineer my domain of influence is pretty limited. However a manager can invoke real organizational change.
Frankly, it depends. The engineer MBA is vastly different than the other types of MBA students. I know some managers who got an MBA to help them become better managers. I know one business owner got an MBA just because he wanted to learn how business people think. Incidentally, it seems to have worked pretty well for him. In some cases, it's just an issue of pedigree. However, let's not lie about the money. We all go to work for money. All of us would like to make enough to have the freedom to do things we enjoy. Some see the MBA as providing that kind of opportunity.
Frankly, in this day an age, unless you want to do research, there's no reason to leave your job and get a MS in CS. There are plenty of part-time, evening, and distance learning professional MS degrees from respected schools. I know that JHU, FSU, Columbia, GaTech, UIUC, Stanford, and CMU have some sort of program designed for working professionals. Heck, even the Wharton School has a weekend MBA. However, if you want to do research or go into academia, you may want to make research your full time job. Secondly, some programs do a better job of allowing their students to work and go to school. Most physics departments do not. I'm not sure if this is because there isn't enough demand or these professors just expect you to make their research a full time job. I really believe it's the latter. (UW and JHU are two notable exceptions for Applied Physics.) So it really depends on what you want to do.
So students get to buy an expensive and fairly worthless robot so they can get a more 'hands-on' feel for a course. I'm taking a shot in the dark most students taking an 'intro to CS' course aren't ready to deal with the mathematics of Robotics/AI or are ready to implement complex path-finding algorithms. If anything some students (admittedly the not so good ones) are still struggling with syntax and coding style. Sure, we should incorporate more AI and robotics education on the undergraduate level. Let's try to avoid making it into a 'hook'. Secondly, any physics or economics taught in an introductory calculus course is pretty superficial at best. They might use it to illustrate mathematical concepts and create a few word problems, but students are even really ready to tackle any real problems in mechanics. In other words, it seems like a lot more trouble than it's worth.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the irony is that in some third world countries the middle class can live even better than in the United States. Being poor really sucks, but a class of working professionals are emerging. Throw in a drastically reduced cost of living and you've got an up and coming middle class.
This is assuming one has a survey knowledge of the sciences. Thanks, to MIT's OCW and webcast.berkeley.edu (among other various colleges) you can find material on the introductory level for everything.
Some less obvious sites:
modern physics (not too bad)
http://modphys.ucsd.edu/2dw05/video/video.html
organic chemistry (I haven't watched these at all)
http://chem241.blogspot.com/
http://www2.haverford.edu/wintnerorganicchem/
Before you judge the OP too hard, remember that learning (especially the autodidactic kind) should be fun. Not everyone wants to have gun powder skills +5. For whatever it's worth I agree with you, but without a basic knowledge of chemistry, the study of gun powder and munitions is going to be superficial at best.
What usually ends up happening, at larger universities, is that computational mathematics is placed under the field of pure or abstract mathematics (think Erdos style graph theory/combinatorics) where it's so pure as to be painful to a theoretical computer scientist, it enters into a discrete mathematics track (i.e. Penn, Virginia Tech have such programs), or in the rare but perhaps most useful instances it ends up being part of 'applied mathematics' (think MIT, CalTech) where discrete mathematicians work on real world problems. On the other hand, computer science departments have been making the move to schools of engineering. As a result, you've gotten this bastardized CS curriculum. CS departments tend not to require co-ops. CS departments shun the education about specific tools. Senior projects are weak, if non-existant and CS majors are viewed as wannabe engineers. CE or EECS curriculums are slightly better. Did I mention that MIS degrees are viewed as the equivalent as CS degrees by most people. Who needs compiler design anyway... (please not the sarcasm of my statement).
.NET is without question the more marketable choice. However, there are other factors to look at. How stable are these companies? How well do they follow various software methodologies? Which company has the more competent or scrupulous managers?
Is this Perl shop just using Perl? Do they use web services or RPCs with their web apps? What kind of database do they use on the backend? Perl isn't too marketable in and of itself. However, Perl with PL/SQL might be. Maybe they need some sort of business logic written as well. I've never seen any serious software shop run 100% on Perl.
Also, if you become a real Perl guru, there's some marketability there. Of course, you need to write articles, contribute to projects, and possibly write a book, but it can be done.
Incidentally, there's something to be said if you've got two good job offers. Your skills seem pretty marketable. Lastly, there's something to be said for having fun at your job.
Most of the script-kiddie hacking that businesses worry about could easily be perpetrated by the average IT professional. A good sysadmin or software engineer, if unethical, is a lot more dangerous than your average (ugh, I hate to use this term) 'hacker'. Sheesh, I'd be worried about more worried about the guy who reads Stevens books on Unix and TCP/IP than someone reading a book on rootkits.
:)) is a little more ethical and doesn't spend time contemplating how to ruin your computer.
Incidentally, I'm a little ashamed to admit this, but I once picked up a book on rootkits for Windows because the cover art caught my eye. I had some experience with Windows system programming and I never got a handle (pun intended!!) on the NT kernel. Thinking there might be some great 'black magic' in this rootkit book, I sat down with a cup of coffee and began to read. You know what I realized, I was impressed with the amount of time the authors took to research the material but I realized that the book was nothing more than professional script kiddie. It didn't even contain a good explanation of Windows Driver Development Kit. I figured I'd be better off picking up some documentation from MSDN and tinkering myself. In short, I felt the material was lacking a professional engineering polish. It read like script kiddie. Fortunately your average C++ programmer (outside of Russia
Maybe you should give them a challenging problem and let them write the answer in pascalian like psuedo code (or the language of their choice).
I've had to write code in C++, C#, Java, and Perl, not to mention numerous 'scripting languages' (from PL/SQL to Javascript). From what I can tell, I'm not alone. Can I whip out a compiler ready solution in any given language? No. Can I whip out a pseudocode solution to a complex problem? Sure. Can I translate it into code? I've been doing it for years. Heck, at least pick a language for the interview and let me know ahead of time so I can brush up. I tend to be an expert at one language at a time. I get rusty if I don't write code in a given language after a while.
I've found that being a good programmer has more to do with proper using design methodology than being a syntax monkey (although that helps).
What would a 'superstar' programmer be doing writing code for a website? At best you got some mildly interesting workflow and collaboration tools and a simple search engine. It's not like they're looking for a kernel hacker or creating a new graphics engine. Incidentally, I think John Carmack has a couple rockets to launch, so he's a little busy.
I've created a short list of cool areas for a programmer to work in:
search engines
voice recognition (some good libraries already exist)
optical character recognition
computer vision
graphics engines/visualization tools
scientific computing (especially biology)
data mining
kernel hacking
The not-so-cool list:
workflow/collaboration/document management
data shoveling
yet another web app, with yet another J2EE.NETerific framework
Yeah, I know this a pretty bitter post, but sheesh.... It's not like they need a real 'superstar' programmer. They need a GOOD web developer. Someone you can write clean code, prehaps proficient in the agile methodologies. They don't need a top-notch programmer.
She probably grew up in NYC. Well, that explains quite a bit. Child prodigies are always unique. As far as the other posters go, it's not that you CAN'T do good work at a small school. It's just very hard. The classes aren't as rigourous and the environment is a bit depressing.
Yeah, so. You're using the great outlier to argue against a statistical trend. Frankly, Walter Pitts never had a formal education either. I think his work is more profound. Incidentally, one of the other posters noted she was a child prodigy. This explains the abberation.
Looking at Lehigh University's Math department website, this woman got her PhD at
Ph.D., Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, 1978.
While she seems to have some interesting research, it just seems odd that a mathematician on the verge of solving one of the great outstanding problems in mathematics attended such a no name school. Does anyone know something about the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn that I don't?
Yeah, learning how to wrap your head around problems that are bigger than a couple of good 'hacking' sessions is a real skill. Plus, it's HIGHLY marketable. You just have to learn how to advertise yourself.
Recently, I ran across Marvin Minsky's 'Society of Mind' in a psychology section of the library. At first, I thought it was just a poorly placed book, but then I realized most of the content of the book had very little in common with the AI books I've seen used by CS departments. Most AI courses are highly synthesized garbage. They don't really teach probability/statistics (they've got a department for that), they don't really teach logic (they got 2 departments for that), they don't teach you about linguistics, physiology, .... Well, you get the idea. Knuth's book is fairly similar. Most algorithm books don't bother to implement their own instruction set. Aside from being a more 'mathematically elegant' book, Knuth realizes architecture and language design play a role in writing fast code as well. If I wanted to be a great computer scientist, I'd study Math, EE, and Cognitive Science and take a Algorithms class for fun. IIRC, Minsky and Knuth both have Math PhDs.
Why is it that every IQ test looks like it came out a mathematician's head? Half the problems on any IQ test tend to focus on algebra, combinatorics, number theory, and the tiniest bits of analysis.
Incidentally, I'd hate to see the topology questions on an IQ test. Maybe it would determine the likelihood of a mental disorder.
I'm a student in Math and Physics whose spent several years working as a Software Engineer. I thought about becoming a quant and have spent some time researching how to get a job in the field. With this said, I present to you the results of my investigation. I don't claim to be an expert. However, my opinion is free, so take it as you will.
You've got a foot in the door...
The fact that you work for a bank is good. It may help you get a leg up on getting into a graduate program. Any experience you can get on a trading floor or working as a quant will be golden on your application. The key to the best Finance programs is that they want a high employment rate among their graduates. Pedigree is good. Experience is better. If you're an IT grunt at a place like Goldman Sachs, you practically halfway there.
Math, math, and more math...
If you're going the quant route, you need some math. You need to be conversant in Probability, Mathematical Statistics, Stochastic Calculus, and Information Theory.* There's a reason they hire Physics PhDs (the Ivy League kind) to do work as a quant. Realizing that the pool of disgruntled, yet brilliant physicists is fairly small another entry track among the professional Master's programs in Mathematical Finance has emerged.
Economics and Finance is good too...
If you're going to work on Wall St. you might actually want to know a little something about the market itself. Frankly, I can't imagine how someone could become a trader without some knowledge of economics. Most of the graduate programs seems to be unconcerned with your knowledge of this going into their programs. It seems that math is the ultimate litmus test for acceptance (whether this is good or bad is another question). I guess they figure they can "teach" you the rest.
Pedigree is king...
U. of Chicago, NYU, Columbia, Stanford, CMU, among others have decent Mathematical Finance/Financial Engineering/Computational Finance degree programs. Many of these programs can be completed part-time. Also, Stanford has a certificate program in Finance that you can complete via distance learning. From what I can tell, the certificate program is essentially a couple of core courses from the graduate program.
Network, network, network
SIAM has a Financial Mathematics fair every year. Look it up on the web. Put on a nice suit, polish up your resume, and go to it. Frankly, just taking the step of showing up with some intelligent questions, you bound to get some good insight into the profession.
Any responses/corrections are quite welcome. Like I said, I'm just an amateur myself -- so YMMV.
*Information theory is probably not a hard requirement. Information theory has always fascinated me and I've always been interested in Statistical Physics, Complex Systems, and AIT anyway. On a unrelated note, I've always wondered why Physicists are looked as great quants, when it seems the work smacks of being a good applied statistician.
How many effective SQL injection attacks have there been? Every time someone shows me an example of a SQL injection attack, it seems a bit contrived.
Take the following as an example:
bad_string="SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id=" + BAR_DATA_GOES_HERE
EXEC(bad_string)
Wouldn't the attacker need to know your data model pretty well. Wouldn't the attacker need a way of extracting the results of the query through HTTP response. In other words, what does a really good SQL injection attack look like? Sure, I could possibly bring your site to a halt by writing ugly slow queries (e.g. "SELECT * FROM user u1, user u2, user u3...").
I never really understood the page links at the bottom of each 'page' of comments. It doesn't seem to work properly. What's it supposed to do? How does it decide where one page starts and another ends?
The real problem is that shareholders have very little incentive for their company to do well in the long term. If a shareholder makes their quarterly chunk of change and bails before the company goes bad, that's okay with them. Thus, CEOs are paid to be short-sighted. Ultimately these CEOs become glorified fund managers. CEOs are hardly leaders of men.
Frankly, it takes a both technical know how and good business sense to run a company. Steve Jobs had a fortune and a good reputation (of sorts) to leverage when he left Apple. I'm not even sure Wozniak was really looking for more money. Frankly, most of the 'geeks' I know (even the one's in suits) are pretty happy with less. If I had the money, I'd be happy to devote my life to research. Most good managers thrive on managing. Incidentally, I do agree that a good manager is worth his weight in gold. The problem is that I think we've all seen too many bad managers. When a company isn't making any money and isn't taking the steps towards turning things around, the buck really needs to start at the top. As a software engineer my domain of influence is pretty limited. However a manager can invoke real organizational change.
Apparently funding in the liberal arts is bad. I wouldn't know, but I've heard the horror stories.
From what I was told, Virginia stills allows you to do this.
Frankly, it depends. The engineer MBA is vastly different than the other types of MBA students. I know some managers who got an MBA to help them become better managers. I know one business owner got an MBA just because he wanted to learn how business people think. Incidentally, it seems to have worked pretty well for him. In some cases, it's just an issue of pedigree. However, let's not lie about the money. We all go to work for money. All of us would like to make enough to have the freedom to do things we enjoy. Some see the MBA as providing that kind of opportunity.
Frankly, in this day an age, unless you want to do research, there's no reason to leave your job and get a MS in CS. There are plenty of part-time, evening, and distance learning professional MS degrees from respected schools. I know that JHU, FSU, Columbia, GaTech, UIUC, Stanford, and CMU have some sort of program designed for working professionals. Heck, even the Wharton School has a weekend MBA. However, if you want to do research or go into academia, you may want to make research your full time job. Secondly, some programs do a better job of allowing their students to work and go to school. Most physics departments do not. I'm not sure if this is because there isn't enough demand or these professors just expect you to make their research a full time job. I really believe it's the latter. (UW and JHU are two notable exceptions for Applied Physics.) So it really depends on what you want to do.
So students get to buy an expensive and fairly worthless robot so they can get a more 'hands-on' feel for a course. I'm taking a shot in the dark most students taking an 'intro to CS' course aren't ready to deal with the mathematics of Robotics/AI or are ready to implement complex path-finding algorithms. If anything some students (admittedly the not so good ones) are still struggling with syntax and coding style. Sure, we should incorporate more AI and robotics education on the undergraduate level. Let's try to avoid making it into a 'hook'. Secondly, any physics or economics taught in an introductory calculus course is pretty superficial at best. They might use it to illustrate mathematical concepts and create a few word problems, but students are even really ready to tackle any real problems in mechanics. In other words, it seems like a lot more trouble than it's worth.
I hope it has brakes. Once the thrust starts to kick in, you're going to have problems stoping it.
If the Russians launched it, it should be coming back any day now.