Some members of the Pokemon Mafia--Team Rocket, Jessie and James--have been searching for Pikachu.
Sites that have no mobile versions--which includes sites owned by Wikipedia, the BBC and the European Union--will find themselves with lower Google search placement, starting today.
See, Wikipedia is the BBC and the European Union.
To make this a serial list instead of a parenthetical expansion, you need a comma before the conjunction on the last member of the list. Consider the following list: Ham, turkey, bacon and eggs, peanut butter and jelly, fish and chips. Now consider the following list: Bacon and eggs, peanut butter and jelly, fish and chips, ham and turkey. This is a different list, as it lists an item called "Ham and turkey".
That only happens on modules compiled into the same source file, not on anything external. That always happens: Compilers totally optimize out any interfaces for things that aren't interfaced with.
Where they seem to get nervous is over the fact that the jobs increasingly eliminated by automation are jobs that previously required a lot of education and were high wage, white collar jobs. And they're not being replaced by new jobs of the same type, they're being replaced by low-wage jobs that require hard to automate manual skills -- when they're being replaced at all.
This paragraph is a mess, but yeah. Economic considerations are of broad numbers, not individuals. This sits fine with me, as I don't cry too much about saving 100,000 starving people at the expense of throwing 1,000 well-off people into the gutter. Many people balk at this: they either want to save some of the 100,000 without impacting anyone else (not trade 2:1 or 1,000:1, but do no trade), or they want to tax the shit out of the rich for malicious reasons. All I want is a more efficient system.
The new high wage white collar jobs being produced often require the kind of extensive training and experience extremely difficult for mid-career professionals to obtain, which is compounded by the rate of jobs being automated.
A more efficient system doesn't mean computer programmers become robotics guys; it means 100,000 computer programmers may become 100,000 robotics guys, but the original 100,000 programmers may be street urchins while the 100,000 robotics guys used to be street urchins. In three generations, they'll all be retired, and the new people will again just be who they are, and not people who were ousted and people who were elevated. If that means fewer starving people and a bigger middle class, that's fine.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the notion of a broad middle class is a kind of historical accident caused by the confluence of growth in technology, wide and cheap resource availability and high labor demand. We may be nearing the end of the middle class as we've known it and mostly like it, and returning to a more historical pattern of broad poverty and narrow wealth.
That won't happen. It might cycle.
I've calculated the efficiency of a Citizen's Dividend to be higher than our current welfare system. Right now, it's more effective to broaden Social Security and eliminate other Federal welfare, while leaving state welfare to work itself out. We would eliminate OASDI, Federal unemployment, and so forth; we'd leave State food security (WIC, food stamps), housing assistance, and unemployment in place, although these would spin down over time. A Citizen's Dividend, as I describe, provides nothing for children (families) or immigrants, as doing so creates an incentive to neglect children (hey free money! Make babies!) or rush immigrate for free money; keeping state welfare only retains the existing, acceptable risk of these things, but it does allow state welfare to drop a lot.
Under a Citizen's Dividend, mass unemployment doesn't increase welfare costs. It does shrink the middle class: the very poor can get homes, food, and other basic needs; the middle class start folding into this. This retains our labor pool, providing a spending base in the economy (it replaces existing welfare for the same or lower cost, yet improves the economic spending foundation by converting all homeless and low-income families into additional, reliable, predictable markets) and supporting the rebound while minimizing the fall. The rebound, of course, involves cheaper goods, greater goods availability, and more jobs--meaning more middle class.
I should also note that my Citizen's Dividend plan, in particular, pins the dividend to a percentage of all income. Our society grows in wealth over time: the buying power of all total income dollars in the economy increases. This happens because we learn to use the same resources to produce more--we use fewer resources to produce the same goods and services--and so wealth increases. The total dollars increasing (inflation) is more familiar; understand that
I won't let mechanics install brakes because it costs $600-$800 for two wheels, whereas I buy upgraded brake pads (make sure they're street pads, not race pads--never upgrade to racing pads; they won't stop unless they're hot) and new rotors and do my brakes in 20 minutes for about $100. Brakes are ungodly simple: take tire off, unbolt caliper, slap new pads in, pop new rotor on (if you're doing a new rotor), stick caliper back on. If you want, you can flush the brakes with a bleeder kit or with someone in the car pumping the brake pedal (just make sure you do it right--close the petcock while they have the pedal down, not after they release it!).
So yeah. I can perform a $1500 job in around $200 and less than an hour of work. Brakes are one of the most overcharged things on a mechanic's list.
Compile time resolution is 100% necessary for high performance code
When you first run a C++ program, it runs through a list of symbols, resolves them against library addresses, and puts their addresses into a procedural linkage table (PLT). Each time you CALL, you get an indirect jump to an address in the PLT. In lazy resolution, the PLT is populated with a resolver function address, which does the symbol look-up and populates the PLT.
When you run an Objective-C program, it does exactly the same thing; however, the PLT lookup is done through a function that provides symbolic lookup, symbol to symbol, instead of address to symbol. It's effectively the same look-up (it looks in the symbol table), but handled differently (the structure of the class has to be resolved at run time, and the PLT can be later altered by using a different object and changing how the class looks up its members).
It's not much different. It resolves on first, unknown call; then it continues to use the cached address.
Everyone has this odd fantasy where robots replace all our jobs, so we all learn to be machine workers and maintain the robots. 10,000 jobs lost to robots means 10,000 new machine worker jobs; or, even better, 20,000 new engineering, machinist, and so forth jobs.
That would be expensive. Cheap, unskilled labor replaced by robot labor requiring the input of twice as much expensive, skilled labor? The whole premise is that you're replacing 10,000 $8/hr sandwich makers with 10,000 robots each supplying $25/hr to engineers, maintenance people, and so forth. 10,000 x $8/hr = $80,000/hr; 10,000 x $25/hr = $250,000/hr. We're imagining robots will cost less than humans, so obviously there must be less human labor involved in the building, operating, maintaining, and fueling of these robots.
The truth is robots will take our jobs, just like in the Industrial Revolution. 10,000 workers will become 10 robots supported by 100 workers who each make twice as much: 10,000 workers become 100 workers at the cost of 200 workers. Of course, that means your goods and services suddenly carry 1/500 of the human labor cost. Now, let's assume food becomes 20% cheaper--this is a poor assumption, based on fast food service labor being rated at 14% (at McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger King, and so forth, 14% is a common number: if the wages of your floor staff exceed 14% of your revenue for the hour, you start sending people home early), which is wholly unrelated to most food purchase. Still, let's use that for a base assumption and see what happens.
Well, first off, the average middle-class person may spend $300/month on food; it's possible, with discipline, to get down as low as $35/month, and in fact $100/mo is a good target, and I've personally eaten lots of sushi and chicken and bacon and eggs and mushrooms at $120/mo (dry beans and ramen diet be damned). Let's use $300 and $100. a poor person suddenly spends $80, and a middle-class person spends $240 on food. Food being 20% cheaper, there's $60 more in each middle-class pocket every month, and $20 more in the pockets of the poor.
Propagate this out to other goods and services. If, on average, you save even 10%, that's a good $800 billion extra in people's pockets. There's room for another $800 billion luxury industry--video games or smart phones, for example. These industries may or may not automate well, and so you will find new jobs to create, and possibly a lot of new jobs where automation hasn't caught up. These jobs only require some cheap human labor that's difficult to automate, and so your basis of unemployed McDonalds sandwich makers becomes your new basis for the next new product or service.
Having used both Objective-C and C++, I can point out Objective-C as being a vast improvement over C without bringing the major drawbacks of C++. For one thing, Objective-C specifies symbol resolution against what is actually available, rather than what is theorized: in C++, if you recompile a library with a new class member--even a new private member--the data structure of the C++ class is now incorrect, and all applications using that library must be recompiled; in Objective-C, you can extend a new interface onto a class.
Largely, Objective-C is C with classes. Along with that, it's C, however you want to take that, with a better OOP implementation than C++. It's not Python or C#.
They're usually coastal, columnar, and don't create all that much shade. You could conceivably use off-shore reflectors and a salt tower, as well as a vacuum-depressurized boiler (use the away pump or a siphon mechanism as a vacuum system to depressurize the main boiler). The tower doesn't have to be high; and it doubles its output when using a vacuum-depressurized boiler, which isn't common.
I already have it. My watch crystal is made of transparent aluminum. The stuff is pretty fucking hard; bangs, dents, and scratches on the steel case, but the crystal hasn't chipped or scratched at all.
Is that an attempt at the common sense fallacy? "These are somehow different, but I don't see a reason why the differences would matter, so, obviously, they don't, regardless of science."
Affects child development. The pattern looks like autism, but nobody's drawn that conclusion; what they have concluded is that electronic devices are more interesting to children than the real world, and cause them to develop emotionally stunted, withdrawn, and more interested in things than people. It's notable you can identify an autistic infant by watching if it's interested in human faces or in objects.
So, yeah. Interactive electronic devices, TVs with robust entertainment content, and so forth draw the attention of children and disrupt their social development. It's believed a similar, but weaker, effect occurs on adults. This is generally framed as "electronic screens are bad", and I don't feel like typing out term papers about what's actually being said because I like to take science for what it is: a pile of important data that must be analyzed for subtle patterns to derive better conclusions on one side, and a simple and complete conclusion useful to engineers but useless to scientists on the other.
You can debate the science if you want, but it's out there, and people have used it to engineer systems of education and general guidelines for the upbringing of children. Such engineered guidelines haven't been scrutinized as scientific principles, but neither has a Boeng 747.
Yeah, the hypothesis phase is the start of the scientific method, and it involves intuition and making shit up.
It's more like having the scientific understanding of how lithium ion polymers behave with regard to electron potential creation, and how electrolytic solutions work, and then selecting an electrolytic solution and a lithium ion polymer and putting them together to build a battery. At the end of the day, you've done some work, taken some measurements, made some tweaks, gotten consistent results, patented your Li-Polymer cell, and started manufacturing and selling it in products; it works; but you haven't gotten any science down saying it works the way you believe it works. All you can do is spout about the science that you had for precursor, the things you slapped together, and the results you got.
This might surprise you, but a lot of things are held on the thin branch of slapping a bunch of well-understood science together. Many drug treatments, for example, are held together by science that says certain biochemical effects are useful in a certain way, and science that shows the drug has those effects; we often come back with the conclusion that an entire class of drugs with a long history and variants both ancient and modern are actually totally ineffective because of this.
To put this into context: we have hard science showing that exposing kids to electronic screens is bad. Science backs up that exposing children to electronic screens is bad. We don't have science examining, say, Waldorf Education, which avoids exposing children to electronic screens until they're like 7-8 years old, against new-fangled high-tech Apple Elementary School with iPads all over the place. We've looked at scientific evidence showing that exposure to electronic screens is harmful to child development and determined that a school of education should avoid doing exactly that, in the same way that we've looked at science suggesting antimony should not be in a child's diet in significant quantities and concluded that diets without antimony are better for kids than diets with antimony.
From an art perspective it's lazy, maybe. Depends. Sprite design vs 3D model design... some people find 3D easier than 2D. Game design is more complex than visual style.
Well my database is on an encrypted server disk in case hackers break in, so I don't need a firewall.
Is any of it based on science? Would you even know how to tell?
A lot of it is based in cobbled-together science: we know a bunch of things about human development, about psychology, and about impacts of exposure to certain stimuli; we use those to intuit new things. This is basically how new theories are formed, as scientific understanding of two things doesn't necessarily equate to scientific understanding of the effects of plugging those two things together; it does, however, give you a basis for doing so, and a reasonable assumption that outcomes following the predicted model are probably causal.
No, see, here's what happened: School decides they want product X which works with product Y. Product X sucks; product Y is not defective. School has legitimate claim about product X not delivering; product Y is your fault, and you don't go back to the supplier and make them eat the cost.
The school may have a claim against Pearson, since they delivered shoddy, half-ass work. The school has no claims against Apple, since Apple supplied a device not designed to do what the school wanted, and the school intended to extend it with Pearson's product.
There's a real lesson about bad project management and buyer's remorse here; and, looking back, they're ignoring old and proven lessons about not trying to fix education with unrelated technology. The only technology that belongs in education is education: education methods are a technology, and they are the technology for education.
Until you have an education methodology that shows good, scientific basis and utilizes your fancy toys, you're just throwing toys into education. For example: Japan uses a mathematics curriculum teaching students to use complementary number computation techniques, driven by the exemplary platform of a machine called a Soroban; a Soroban would be a ridiculous toy to bring into the classroom if you were not teaching using these computation techniques and trying to leverage the visual and mechanical aspect of learning by soroban (I've done some self-teaching without the soroban, and learned the same techniques; there are, however, scientific reasons to bring a soroban to the table). If they're just doing workbook activities BUT ON AN IPADZ!!!! and not doing anything known to improve education when an iPad is involved, the iPad is a fucking toy not appropriate in education.
It's worth noting there's a school of educational research suggesting that introducing young children to high technology is actively bad, and that high technology should be taught outright after age 10-12 rather than used as a platform to deliver old teaching methods. Small children need most to learn socialization; they need to interact with other children, and not isolate themselves to curriculum. I have my own educational theory which extends this: small children need most to learn techniques of utilizing the brain effectively, set in an environment of free socialization, so as to develop their social behaviors while also giving them tools to rapidly and effectively learn curriculum. In all of these advanced schools of thought, and in mine, you see that pattern: humans need to learn human behavior first, then learn high technology as a tool; wrapping books in fancy electronics won't suddenly make education better.
This is like the 90s when everyone's answer to everything related to computer security was "ENCRYPTION!" Now everyone's answer to every education problem is "COMPUTERS!"
Well then play Shovel Knight, Stick It To The Man, and Elliot Quest. (Elliot Quest is a pile of good ideas meshed in bad polish: the game is poorly designed, leaving the player lost and confused, giving inconsistent visual cues, and requiring the use of non-movement-altering to affect movement. For example: the wind ability doesn't affect your movement in horizontal wind; an hour after you get it and an unrelated set of WINGS, you're expected to intuit that the wind ability makes you fly in vertical wind.)
US tax rate is 34% or 35%. It's a complex behemoth where the tax brackets are used to guarantee that businesses above $348,000 pay a flat 34% tax (i.e. they pay 34% of their total income, not X% of 1-348k and 34% of 348k+), and businesses above some short millions pay a flat 35% tax. It's ridiculous.
AU corporate tax rate is 30%.
You can imagine the rage when these companies use Ireland-based subsidiaries to collect the profits they make selling to EU states, instead of paying taxes on EU income to AU or US.
Slashdot Mirror
Some members of the Pokemon Mafia--Team Rocket, Jessie and James--have been searching for Pikachu.
Sites that have no mobile versions--which includes sites owned by Wikipedia, the BBC and the European Union--will find themselves with lower Google search placement, starting today.
See, Wikipedia is the BBC and the European Union.
To make this a serial list instead of a parenthetical expansion, you need a comma before the conjunction on the last member of the list. Consider the following list: Ham, turkey, bacon and eggs, peanut butter and jelly, fish and chips. Now consider the following list: Bacon and eggs, peanut butter and jelly, fish and chips, ham and turkey. This is a different list, as it lists an item called "Ham and turkey".
That only happens on modules compiled into the same source file, not on anything external. That always happens: Compilers totally optimize out any interfaces for things that aren't interfaced with.
Where they seem to get nervous is over the fact that the jobs increasingly eliminated by automation are jobs that previously required a lot of education and were high wage, white collar jobs. And they're not being replaced by new jobs of the same type, they're being replaced by low-wage jobs that require hard to automate manual skills -- when they're being replaced at all.
This paragraph is a mess, but yeah. Economic considerations are of broad numbers, not individuals. This sits fine with me, as I don't cry too much about saving 100,000 starving people at the expense of throwing 1,000 well-off people into the gutter. Many people balk at this: they either want to save some of the 100,000 without impacting anyone else (not trade 2:1 or 1,000:1, but do no trade), or they want to tax the shit out of the rich for malicious reasons. All I want is a more efficient system.
The new high wage white collar jobs being produced often require the kind of extensive training and experience extremely difficult for mid-career professionals to obtain, which is compounded by the rate of jobs being automated.
A more efficient system doesn't mean computer programmers become robotics guys; it means 100,000 computer programmers may become 100,000 robotics guys, but the original 100,000 programmers may be street urchins while the 100,000 robotics guys used to be street urchins. In three generations, they'll all be retired, and the new people will again just be who they are, and not people who were ousted and people who were elevated. If that means fewer starving people and a bigger middle class, that's fine.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the notion of a broad middle class is a kind of historical accident caused by the confluence of growth in technology, wide and cheap resource availability and high labor demand. We may be nearing the end of the middle class as we've known it and mostly like it, and returning to a more historical pattern of broad poverty and narrow wealth.
That won't happen. It might cycle.
I've calculated the efficiency of a Citizen's Dividend to be higher than our current welfare system. Right now, it's more effective to broaden Social Security and eliminate other Federal welfare, while leaving state welfare to work itself out. We would eliminate OASDI, Federal unemployment, and so forth; we'd leave State food security (WIC, food stamps), housing assistance, and unemployment in place, although these would spin down over time. A Citizen's Dividend, as I describe, provides nothing for children (families) or immigrants, as doing so creates an incentive to neglect children (hey free money! Make babies!) or rush immigrate for free money; keeping state welfare only retains the existing, acceptable risk of these things, but it does allow state welfare to drop a lot.
Under a Citizen's Dividend, mass unemployment doesn't increase welfare costs. It does shrink the middle class: the very poor can get homes, food, and other basic needs; the middle class start folding into this. This retains our labor pool, providing a spending base in the economy (it replaces existing welfare for the same or lower cost, yet improves the economic spending foundation by converting all homeless and low-income families into additional, reliable, predictable markets) and supporting the rebound while minimizing the fall. The rebound, of course, involves cheaper goods, greater goods availability, and more jobs--meaning more middle class.
I should also note that my Citizen's Dividend plan, in particular, pins the dividend to a percentage of all income. Our society grows in wealth over time: the buying power of all total income dollars in the economy increases. This happens because we learn to use the same resources to produce more--we use fewer resources to produce the same goods and services--and so wealth increases. The total dollars increasing (inflation) is more familiar; understand that
[c_jmoser@vmohssibg002 ~]$ ldd /bin/ls
linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007fff79487000) /lib64/librt.so.1 (0x00007fe67c310000) /lib64/libacl.so.1 (0x00007fe67c109000) /lib64/libselinux.so.1 (0x00007fe67bef1000) /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007fe67bb98000) /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007fe67b97b000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fe67c52a000) /lib64/libattr.so.1 (0x00007fe67b777000) /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x00007fe67b573000) /lib64/libsepol.so.1 (0x00007fe67b32c000)
librt.so.1 =>
libacl.so.1 =>
libselinux.so.1 =>
libc.so.6 =>
libpthread.so.0 =>
libattr.so.1 =>
libdl.so.2 =>
libsepol.so.1 =>
I won't let mechanics install brakes because it costs $600-$800 for two wheels, whereas I buy upgraded brake pads (make sure they're street pads, not race pads--never upgrade to racing pads; they won't stop unless they're hot) and new rotors and do my brakes in 20 minutes for about $100. Brakes are ungodly simple: take tire off, unbolt caliper, slap new pads in, pop new rotor on (if you're doing a new rotor), stick caliper back on. If you want, you can flush the brakes with a bleeder kit or with someone in the car pumping the brake pedal (just make sure you do it right--close the petcock while they have the pedal down, not after they release it!).
So yeah. I can perform a $1500 job in around $200 and less than an hour of work. Brakes are one of the most overcharged things on a mechanic's list.
Compile time resolution is 100% necessary for high performance code
When you first run a C++ program, it runs through a list of symbols, resolves them against library addresses, and puts their addresses into a procedural linkage table (PLT). Each time you CALL, you get an indirect jump to an address in the PLT. In lazy resolution, the PLT is populated with a resolver function address, which does the symbol look-up and populates the PLT.
When you run an Objective-C program, it does exactly the same thing; however, the PLT lookup is done through a function that provides symbolic lookup, symbol to symbol, instead of address to symbol. It's effectively the same look-up (it looks in the symbol table), but handled differently (the structure of the class has to be resolved at run time, and the PLT can be later altered by using a different object and changing how the class looks up its members).
It's not much different. It resolves on first, unknown call; then it continues to use the cached address.
Everyone has this odd fantasy where robots replace all our jobs, so we all learn to be machine workers and maintain the robots. 10,000 jobs lost to robots means 10,000 new machine worker jobs; or, even better, 20,000 new engineering, machinist, and so forth jobs.
That would be expensive. Cheap, unskilled labor replaced by robot labor requiring the input of twice as much expensive, skilled labor? The whole premise is that you're replacing 10,000 $8/hr sandwich makers with 10,000 robots each supplying $25/hr to engineers, maintenance people, and so forth. 10,000 x $8/hr = $80,000/hr; 10,000 x $25/hr = $250,000/hr. We're imagining robots will cost less than humans, so obviously there must be less human labor involved in the building, operating, maintaining, and fueling of these robots.
The truth is robots will take our jobs, just like in the Industrial Revolution. 10,000 workers will become 10 robots supported by 100 workers who each make twice as much: 10,000 workers become 100 workers at the cost of 200 workers. Of course, that means your goods and services suddenly carry 1/500 of the human labor cost. Now, let's assume food becomes 20% cheaper--this is a poor assumption, based on fast food service labor being rated at 14% (at McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger King, and so forth, 14% is a common number: if the wages of your floor staff exceed 14% of your revenue for the hour, you start sending people home early), which is wholly unrelated to most food purchase. Still, let's use that for a base assumption and see what happens.
Well, first off, the average middle-class person may spend $300/month on food; it's possible, with discipline, to get down as low as $35/month, and in fact $100/mo is a good target, and I've personally eaten lots of sushi and chicken and bacon and eggs and mushrooms at $120/mo (dry beans and ramen diet be damned). Let's use $300 and $100. a poor person suddenly spends $80, and a middle-class person spends $240 on food. Food being 20% cheaper, there's $60 more in each middle-class pocket every month, and $20 more in the pockets of the poor.
Propagate this out to other goods and services. If, on average, you save even 10%, that's a good $800 billion extra in people's pockets. There's room for another $800 billion luxury industry--video games or smart phones, for example. These industries may or may not automate well, and so you will find new jobs to create, and possibly a lot of new jobs where automation hasn't caught up. These jobs only require some cheap human labor that's difficult to automate, and so your basis of unemployed McDonalds sandwich makers becomes your new basis for the next new product or service.
Having used both Objective-C and C++, I can point out Objective-C as being a vast improvement over C without bringing the major drawbacks of C++. For one thing, Objective-C specifies symbol resolution against what is actually available, rather than what is theorized: in C++, if you recompile a library with a new class member--even a new private member--the data structure of the C++ class is now incorrect, and all applications using that library must be recompiled; in Objective-C, you can extend a new interface onto a class.
Largely, Objective-C is C with classes. Along with that, it's C, however you want to take that, with a better OOP implementation than C++. It's not Python or C#.
Yeah, it's a fad language. We'll see if it sticks like Python, C#, or Java.
They're usually coastal, columnar, and don't create all that much shade. You could conceivably use off-shore reflectors and a salt tower, as well as a vacuum-depressurized boiler (use the away pump or a siphon mechanism as a vacuum system to depressurize the main boiler). The tower doesn't have to be high; and it doubles its output when using a vacuum-depressurized boiler, which isn't common.
I already have it. My watch crystal is made of transparent aluminum. The stuff is pretty fucking hard; bangs, dents, and scratches on the steel case, but the crystal hasn't chipped or scratched at all.
Yeah there you go. A solar desalinization plant would cost a shitload less than $30bn, and would work better.
Is that an attempt at the common sense fallacy? "These are somehow different, but I don't see a reason why the differences would matter, so, obviously, they don't, regardless of science."
Duct tape your phone to the shovel.
Kobalt Digging Shovel and Kobalt Fiberglass Pick Mattock are my favorites for digging.
Affects child development. The pattern looks like autism, but nobody's drawn that conclusion; what they have concluded is that electronic devices are more interesting to children than the real world, and cause them to develop emotionally stunted, withdrawn, and more interested in things than people. It's notable you can identify an autistic infant by watching if it's interested in human faces or in objects.
So, yeah. Interactive electronic devices, TVs with robust entertainment content, and so forth draw the attention of children and disrupt their social development. It's believed a similar, but weaker, effect occurs on adults. This is generally framed as "electronic screens are bad", and I don't feel like typing out term papers about what's actually being said because I like to take science for what it is: a pile of important data that must be analyzed for subtle patterns to derive better conclusions on one side, and a simple and complete conclusion useful to engineers but useless to scientists on the other.
You can debate the science if you want, but it's out there, and people have used it to engineer systems of education and general guidelines for the upbringing of children. Such engineered guidelines haven't been scrutinized as scientific principles, but neither has a Boeng 747.
Maybe people will stop playing this waste of bandwidth.
Yeah, the hypothesis phase is the start of the scientific method, and it involves intuition and making shit up.
It's more like having the scientific understanding of how lithium ion polymers behave with regard to electron potential creation, and how electrolytic solutions work, and then selecting an electrolytic solution and a lithium ion polymer and putting them together to build a battery. At the end of the day, you've done some work, taken some measurements, made some tweaks, gotten consistent results, patented your Li-Polymer cell, and started manufacturing and selling it in products; it works; but you haven't gotten any science down saying it works the way you believe it works. All you can do is spout about the science that you had for precursor, the things you slapped together, and the results you got.
This might surprise you, but a lot of things are held on the thin branch of slapping a bunch of well-understood science together. Many drug treatments, for example, are held together by science that says certain biochemical effects are useful in a certain way, and science that shows the drug has those effects; we often come back with the conclusion that an entire class of drugs with a long history and variants both ancient and modern are actually totally ineffective because of this.
To put this into context: we have hard science showing that exposing kids to electronic screens is bad. Science backs up that exposing children to electronic screens is bad. We don't have science examining, say, Waldorf Education, which avoids exposing children to electronic screens until they're like 7-8 years old, against new-fangled high-tech Apple Elementary School with iPads all over the place. We've looked at scientific evidence showing that exposure to electronic screens is harmful to child development and determined that a school of education should avoid doing exactly that, in the same way that we've looked at science suggesting antimony should not be in a child's diet in significant quantities and concluded that diets without antimony are better for kids than diets with antimony.
From an art perspective it's lazy, maybe. Depends. Sprite design vs 3D model design... some people find 3D easier than 2D. Game design is more complex than visual style.
Then Apple may have a claim? IDK now. That just seems like Apple creating liability for themselves.
Yeah and no one uses encryption anymore....
Well my database is on an encrypted server disk in case hackers break in, so I don't need a firewall.
Is any of it based on science? Would you even know how to tell?
A lot of it is based in cobbled-together science: we know a bunch of things about human development, about psychology, and about impacts of exposure to certain stimuli; we use those to intuit new things. This is basically how new theories are formed, as scientific understanding of two things doesn't necessarily equate to scientific understanding of the effects of plugging those two things together; it does, however, give you a basis for doing so, and a reasonable assumption that outcomes following the predicted model are probably causal.
This is how science starts.
It's because of the isolation effect of introducing cell phones and computers to children.
So wait, you fucked up, and now you want us to pay for it?
No, see, here's what happened: School decides they want product X which works with product Y. Product X sucks; product Y is not defective. School has legitimate claim about product X not delivering; product Y is your fault, and you don't go back to the supplier and make them eat the cost.
The school may have a claim against Pearson, since they delivered shoddy, half-ass work. The school has no claims against Apple, since Apple supplied a device not designed to do what the school wanted, and the school intended to extend it with Pearson's product.
There's a real lesson about bad project management and buyer's remorse here; and, looking back, they're ignoring old and proven lessons about not trying to fix education with unrelated technology. The only technology that belongs in education is education: education methods are a technology, and they are the technology for education.
Until you have an education methodology that shows good, scientific basis and utilizes your fancy toys, you're just throwing toys into education. For example: Japan uses a mathematics curriculum teaching students to use complementary number computation techniques, driven by the exemplary platform of a machine called a Soroban; a Soroban would be a ridiculous toy to bring into the classroom if you were not teaching using these computation techniques and trying to leverage the visual and mechanical aspect of learning by soroban (I've done some self-teaching without the soroban, and learned the same techniques; there are, however, scientific reasons to bring a soroban to the table). If they're just doing workbook activities BUT ON AN IPADZ!!!! and not doing anything known to improve education when an iPad is involved, the iPad is a fucking toy not appropriate in education.
It's worth noting there's a school of educational research suggesting that introducing young children to high technology is actively bad, and that high technology should be taught outright after age 10-12 rather than used as a platform to deliver old teaching methods. Small children need most to learn socialization; they need to interact with other children, and not isolate themselves to curriculum. I have my own educational theory which extends this: small children need most to learn techniques of utilizing the brain effectively, set in an environment of free socialization, so as to develop their social behaviors while also giving them tools to rapidly and effectively learn curriculum. In all of these advanced schools of thought, and in mine, you see that pattern: humans need to learn human behavior first, then learn high technology as a tool; wrapping books in fancy electronics won't suddenly make education better.
This is like the 90s when everyone's answer to everything related to computer security was "ENCRYPTION!" Now everyone's answer to every education problem is "COMPUTERS!"
Well then play Shovel Knight, Stick It To The Man, and Elliot Quest. (Elliot Quest is a pile of good ideas meshed in bad polish: the game is poorly designed, leaving the player lost and confused, giving inconsistent visual cues, and requiring the use of non-movement-altering to affect movement. For example: the wind ability doesn't affect your movement in horizontal wind; an hour after you get it and an unrelated set of WINGS, you're expected to intuit that the wind ability makes you fly in vertical wind.)
US tax rate is 34% or 35%. It's a complex behemoth where the tax brackets are used to guarantee that businesses above $348,000 pay a flat 34% tax (i.e. they pay 34% of their total income, not X% of 1-348k and 34% of 348k+), and businesses above some short millions pay a flat 35% tax. It's ridiculous.
AU corporate tax rate is 30%.
You can imagine the rage when these companies use Ireland-based subsidiaries to collect the profits they make selling to EU states, instead of paying taxes on EU income to AU or US.