The last half century did burn about 2000 years of results from fundamental research. That is basically over now and things are starting to slow down. Next step is not to find new technologies but to apply what is there to get rid of all these pesky workers. Simplistic extrapolation does not work for longer-term predictions in complex systems.
And what about all the other stuff that would have similar effects bud does not get a chance because of the "coding" hype? Coding is a technical specialty that most people will never really understand. There is absolutely no sane reason to single it out as something that "everybody should have some understanding off".
Oh, sure, most people would _benefit_ from some actual coding skills. But the same is true for basic medicine, politics, budget planning, etc. And yet, most people cannot do these things competently either.
That tired old nonsense has been touted since computers are around. Wrong half a century ago, wrong today. Unless you are thinking of a future where 90% are unemployed, because their jobs have been automated away. In that scenario, you will find that the remaining 10% are mostly those with the aptitude to write good code.
You seem to be functionally illiterate. I was always talking about coding well. Coding badly can indeed be taught to almost everybody, just like singing badly, doing bad oil-painting, giving bad speeches, etc. can be taught to almost everybody. The point is that doing so does far more harm than good and hence it should _not_ be done.
Thanks, and same to you too. You think I have no experience teaching coding? Meeep, wrong. You think I am a shitty teacher? Meeeep, wrong. The difference is that I teach CS students on different levels and that I found out that even among them, most never learn to code well, _regardless_ on who teaches them, what language(s) are used or whether they were taught at all. Same result in any situation: About 10% can code well on graduation, 30-40% so-so, 50% (!) not really. This is not a question of teaching methods, languages, teachers, etc. Vastly different approaches produce very similar results. It is purely a problem of aptitude. And most people do not have it.
Indeed. And look, anybody actually able to read well (not the mostly functionally-illiterate level we encounter so often these days) can work though a coding tutorial if they find they need basic skills at it.
Complete nonsense. Nobody needs coding outside of their jobs even today, and very few need it for doing their jobs. Also teaching people a tiny bit of coding is like teaching them to start a chainsaw: People will get hurt with that approach. Large enterprises see this routinely in practice when some semi-competent idiots start to automatize business processes with Excel, for example, with no review, no testing, no backup, no documentation and no emergency procedures. This does much, much more harm than good. And that is what you are advocating.
Programming is much, much more than simple propositional logic. At the very least you need discrete-time predicate logic, and there you leave basically all non-experts behind. Hence modeling programming as "logic" is not useful in actual reality beyond very simple toy code.
And when, in your deranged mind, has Logic stopped being a mathematical discipline? Also, how much actual CS do you have, because logic does not get you very far, even eminently complex HOLs do not capture most of CS (or even coding) in a practically useful way. In addition, your "approach" is pretty much unusable in the real world, as the technology is neither simple nor obvious at this time and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
If you want a solution that cannot be compromised, then you are a) clueless and b) need to disconnect from the Internet. The question is not at all whether something "can" be compromised, it is how difficult it is in relation to how easy it is to notice. And there a web-of-trust shines.
No idea. I do get mod-points pretty frequently though. Currently have some. My impression is that there is some relation to posting behavior, but what exactly I have no idea. It does seem to help if you mod up more than down though when you have points.
Some coding can be, but even that should be limited to those that really want it. It is not even remotely similar to reading, writing and basic math. Most people do not need coding, will never be any good at it and trying to tech it to them is a complete waste of time. Might as well teach bridge building or how to sew up a cut to everybody. Sounds stupid? That is because it is.
Some things are jobs for specialists that have the aptitude for it, because anybody else will never be any good at it. Coding is such a thing. CS even more so.
Don't expect disciples of the cult of the "law" to understand how the real world works. They are generally stupid enough to think they can change reality with letters on some paper. That has never worked and cannot work. It can (maybe) discourage some extreme behaviors, but even that is a sketchy proposition. I really do not think there have been fewer murders since it became "illegal", for example.
Please point out which of her actions were not stupid?
Yes, that is messed up, but it was her that created this mess in the first place. You cannot have freedom without some people doing utterly stupid things and some others giving them their 15 minutes of fame for it.
Why is this a surprise? Why do some people think others should be protected against their own, severe stupidity?
Seriously, it was completely clear and obvious that this video would end up on the Internet. After all, she published it (by sending it to her ex) without conditions or restrictions on its use. That somebody utterly stupid (sorry for speaking ill of the dead, but it is a fact here) may take their own life when they realize how massively they have screwed up is also not new.
There is _zero_ need to do anything here. Stupid people will always be around and it is not possible to make the world safe for them. A lot of damage can be done by trying though, so the effort itself is utterly evil.
Slashdot Mirror
The last half century did burn about 2000 years of results from fundamental research. That is basically over now and things are starting to slow down. Next step is not to find new technologies but to apply what is there to get rid of all these pesky workers. Simplistic extrapolation does not work for longer-term predictions in complex systems.
Actually, it requires a lot of very specialized math that is hard to understand for most people.
And what about all the other stuff that would have similar effects bud does not get a chance because of the "coding" hype? Coding is a technical specialty that most people will never really understand. There is absolutely no sane reason to single it out as something that "everybody should have some understanding off".
Oh, sure, most people would _benefit_ from some actual coding skills. But the same is true for basic medicine, politics, budget planning, etc. And yet, most people cannot do these things competently either.
That tired old nonsense has been touted since computers are around. Wrong half a century ago, wrong today. Unless you are thinking of a future where 90% are unemployed, because their jobs have been automated away. In that scenario, you will find that the remaining 10% are mostly those with the aptitude to write good code.
Hahahaha, you wish.
You seem to be functionally illiterate. I was always talking about coding well. Coding badly can indeed be taught to almost everybody, just like singing badly, doing bad oil-painting, giving bad speeches, etc. can be taught to almost everybody. The point is that doing so does far more harm than good and hence it should _not_ be done.
Thanks, and same to you too. You think I have no experience teaching coding? Meeep, wrong. You think I am a shitty teacher? Meeeep, wrong. The difference is that I teach CS students on different levels and that I found out that even among them, most never learn to code well, _regardless_ on who teaches them, what language(s) are used or whether they were taught at all. Same result in any situation: About 10% can code well on graduation, 30-40% so-so, 50% (!) not really. This is not a question of teaching methods, languages, teachers, etc. Vastly different approaches produce very similar results. It is purely a problem of aptitude. And most people do not have it.
Indeed. And look, anybody actually able to read well (not the mostly functionally-illiterate level we encounter so often these days) can work though a coding tutorial if they find they need basic skills at it.
Complete nonsense. Nobody needs coding outside of their jobs even today, and very few need it for doing their jobs. Also teaching people a tiny bit of coding is like teaching them to start a chainsaw: People will get hurt with that approach. Large enterprises see this routinely in practice when some semi-competent idiots start to automatize business processes with Excel, for example, with no review, no testing, no backup, no documentation and no emergency procedures. This does much, much more harm than good. And that is what you are advocating.
Programming is much, much more than simple propositional logic. At the very least you need discrete-time predicate logic, and there you leave basically all non-experts behind. Hence modeling programming as "logic" is not useful in actual reality beyond very simple toy code.
And when, in your deranged mind, has Logic stopped being a mathematical discipline? Also, how much actual CS do you have, because logic does not get you very far, even eminently complex HOLs do not capture most of CS (or even coding) in a practically useful way. In addition, your "approach" is pretty much unusable in the real world, as the technology is neither simple nor obvious at this time and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
And what right has that to this discussion here? Right, none at all.
If you want a solution that cannot be compromised, then you are a) clueless and b) need to disconnect from the Internet. The question is not at all whether something "can" be compromised, it is how difficult it is in relation to how easy it is to notice. And there a web-of-trust shines.
Ah, the old "you-have-not-tried-it" fallacy. No, thanks, that one is for idiots only.
No idea. I do get mod-points pretty frequently though. Currently have some. My impression is that there is some relation to posting behavior, but what exactly I have no idea. It does seem to help if you mod up more than down though when you have points.
Some coding can be, but even that should be limited to those that really want it. It is not even remotely similar to reading, writing and basic math. Most people do not need coding, will never be any good at it and trying to tech it to them is a complete waste of time. Might as well teach bridge building or how to sew up a cut to everybody. Sounds stupid? That is because it is.
Some things are jobs for specialists that have the aptitude for it, because anybody else will never be any good at it. Coding is such a thing. CS even more so.
Don't expect disciples of the cult of the "law" to understand how the real world works. They are generally stupid enough to think they can change reality with letters on some paper. That has never worked and cannot work. It can (maybe) discourage some extreme behaviors, but even that is a sketchy proposition. I really do not think there have been fewer murders since it became "illegal", for example.
Actually, by the usual logic of modern feminists turned round, she committed aggravated sexual assault.
Indeed. Femifascism at its best.
Please point out which of her actions were not stupid?
Yes, that is messed up, but it was her that created this mess in the first place. You cannot have freedom without some people doing utterly stupid things and some others giving them their 15 minutes of fame for it.
I agree, and the worst of it is the utter stupidity of some people. This woman is really at the peak of that. There is no fix for stupid.
Why is this a surprise? Why do some people think others should be protected against their own, severe stupidity?
Seriously, it was completely clear and obvious that this video would end up on the Internet. After all, she published it (by sending it to her ex) without conditions or restrictions on its use. That somebody utterly stupid (sorry for speaking ill of the dead, but it is a fact here) may take their own life when they realize how massively they have screwed up is also not new.
There is _zero_ need to do anything here. Stupid people will always be around and it is not possible to make the world safe for them. A lot of damage can be done by trying though, so the effort itself is utterly evil.
Hehehehe, "Flamebait"! Immediately points put that this is an invalid "I do not agree" moderation.
You may want to look up "pseudonymity"....