Or to put it differently: Free will may well require thinking about things for a while, while reflex-like fast decisions are just that. Just as most sane people would probably have expected anyways.
I fully agree. Some people manage to do it without support from their parents, but they are rare. Parents that are not invested in their children are a blight and should never have had any. It is the ultimate form of irresponsibility. Well meaning parents that are limited themselves are much less of a problem, I think, I had several fellow students with such a background at university and they did not do worse than others.
Incidentally, my main issue with these "teach coding" initiatives is exactly the same as yours: Most people are not cut out for STEM (and coding is STEM) and should find things they enjoy doing at least to some degree instead. A bad coder is worse than no coder, same as any other STEM worker.
Not at all. But the idea to fix that by teaching them to code on a low skill level is not going to work at all. Instead it wastes their time and will just turn out to be another false hope and demotivate them further. I am not against teaching kids valuable skills that they actually have a good chance of learning, but "coding" is not that skill for a number of reasons.
Well. this is a difficult question. What would certainly be beneficial to have a lot of people that can do some coding (say on the level of math you learn in school as opposed to what a STEM graduate can do), and that know they are not experts at it. On the other side, we have far too many people that have "coding" as core skill and most of them are bad at it. That is probably more harmful than anything else, because it drives salaries to the bottom and causes bad working conditions. Smart people that are interested in coding and the general field that surrounds it are driven away, because they do _not_ want to go into a field like this and instead re-focus on other areas they do not like as much, but allow you to found a family and have kids, for example. At the same time, these people are critically needed. You cannot replace one good coder with 10, 100, or even 1000 bad ones. The bad ones will produce bad results because they lack the insight required. You need that one good coder, and they are getting rarer and rarer.
The only hope I have for the IT field eventually figuring out how to not mess it up consistently is, strangely, from automation. While there is little hope of ever automating what a good coder can do, it might just be possible to get rid of the bad ones altogether and thereby reduce the damage done considerably. Of course, I do not believe the "production economy" can be kept alive much longer, most things just need far too few people to be made and that is not ever going to get better but is getting progressively worse. This problem will have to be solved in a different way. "Work" as a mechanism to distribute wealth and allow people to buy things so the market stays viable and people can live reasonably is approaching the end of its viability. Not much of a surprise either.
Sorry, but people that have failed to use the opportunities to learn these skills before will _not_ pick them up in a coding camp either. And there were plenty of such opportunities before. Ever debugged your solution to a math problem? Ever had any kind of group-work in school? Ever had any kind of home-work that required planning? See what I mean? "Coding" is not the magical subject that will make people learn things they were not prepared or willing to learn before and certainly not in a short-term program like a "coding camp".
Sounds like you never learned to say "no". It is a critical survival skill in the IT industry, as so many people are so incompetent that they spend a lot of time looking for somebody that can do their work for them.
It does not need to be a blunt "no". It can be, "sure, I will be delighted, what cost object do I book this on?" or "sure, we will be happy to do that for you under an additional contract" or the like. That way, you can fend of people that just want your time and expertise for free and if they are willing to pay, you have the needed data to demand a raise.
From experience teaching coding, most students cannot generalize what they learn in coding, hence that is not what is happening. Incidentally, if your argument were true, math in school would have already accomplished that.
Well, Schindler did this for the first time and under extreme risk and pressure. He had to figure it out as he went, and if he had overdone it or seriously mis-stepped, he could also have saved a lot less people. It is understandable that his first go at the problem was probably non-optimal.
Any kind of racism is about some faction of a society defined by real or imagined racial characteristics feeling inherently superior, universally without any factual basis.
To be fair, the article says it is about supporting minorities, so they may have actually non-racist goals, and the Prince-quote is likely taken out of context.
Coding jobs are not the factory jobs of the modern age. They are highly specialized, need a lot of talent and dedication and coding above a very low difficulty and quality level can most decidedly not be taught to everybody. Please stop teaching these already disadvantaged youth something most of them will never be good at and where the available jobs on the lower levels are in a fast downwards spiral with regards to pay, job security and upwards mobility. You are just screwing them over.
Does that surprise anybody? The whole thing is a commercial simulation of a real social network, aiming at maximized profits and making all its users (and even additional people that never agreed to anything) their product.
As to AVR, that is why I wrote Arduino "Hardware".
My impression is just that a student that actually wants to learn more about the RPi and then finds they cannot even get a decent datasheet and in addition find that most of it does not follow good engineering practices, then that is exactly the wrong message to send. My other impression is that unreliable network and USB is not something that will make working with this thing fun at all. Sure, by now there are enough work-arounds that it is mostly reliable. But still, bad engineering offends me, and even more so when it is targeted at "learning". Students should never be shown something crappy as "the way to do it".
I most certainly do not want to be the engineer responsible for a spectacular failure. Of course, the software field has far too many "engineers" and many of them bad in other ways, which makes the problem worse. But while I work on a level where I cannot only speak up, it is required that I speak up, I can understand the person that decides to keep quiet.
Still funny. Because I know it is not true. I got to admit that Eben Upton managed to sucker millions of people into buying badly designed hardware and praising him for it, but my aspirations in life do not run to "con-man". Incidentally, nobody is ever more irrelevant than an AC.
You have no clue what people I know and what _they_ did for their engineering PhD work or what they are now doing in academic and industrial research. Not everything gets published. And where did I actually imply that I was talking about _recreating_ Bunny's work? I rather obviously talked about doing the initial research. But you are probably so full of yourself that you cannot grasp that.
Slashdot Mirror
The bad ones will probably kill themselves, unlike bad computer hackers that just stay on as script-kiddies or bad coders.
They have absolutely nothing. Likely, unlikely, they cannot say without making invalid assumptions.
Or to put it differently: Free will may well require thinking about things for a while, while reflex-like fast decisions are just that. Just as most sane people would probably have expected anyways.
I fully agree. Some people manage to do it without support from their parents, but they are rare. Parents that are not invested in their children are a blight and should never have had any. It is the ultimate form of irresponsibility. Well meaning parents that are limited themselves are much less of a problem, I think, I had several fellow students with such a background at university and they did not do worse than others.
Incidentally, my main issue with these "teach coding" initiatives is exactly the same as yours: Most people are not cut out for STEM (and coding is STEM) and should find things they enjoy doing at least to some degree instead. A bad coder is worse than no coder, same as any other STEM worker.
Not at all. But the idea to fix that by teaching them to code on a low skill level is not going to work at all. Instead it wastes their time and will just turn out to be another false hope and demotivate them further. I am not against teaching kids valuable skills that they actually have a good chance of learning, but "coding" is not that skill for a number of reasons.
Well. this is a difficult question. What would certainly be beneficial to have a lot of people that can do some coding (say on the level of math you learn in school as opposed to what a STEM graduate can do), and that know they are not experts at it. On the other side, we have far too many people that have "coding" as core skill and most of them are bad at it. That is probably more harmful than anything else, because it drives salaries to the bottom and causes bad working conditions. Smart people that are interested in coding and the general field that surrounds it are driven away, because they do _not_ want to go into a field like this and instead re-focus on other areas they do not like as much, but allow you to found a family and have kids, for example. At the same time, these people are critically needed. You cannot replace one good coder with 10, 100, or even 1000 bad ones. The bad ones will produce bad results because they lack the insight required. You need that one good coder, and they are getting rarer and rarer.
The only hope I have for the IT field eventually figuring out how to not mess it up consistently is, strangely, from automation. While there is little hope of ever automating what a good coder can do, it might just be possible to get rid of the bad ones altogether and thereby reduce the damage done considerably. Of course, I do not believe the "production economy" can be kept alive much longer, most things just need far too few people to be made and that is not ever going to get better but is getting progressively worse. This problem will have to be solved in a different way. "Work" as a mechanism to distribute wealth and allow people to buy things so the market stays viable and people can live reasonably is approaching the end of its viability. Not much of a surprise either.
Sorry, but people that have failed to use the opportunities to learn these skills before will _not_ pick them up in a coding camp either. And there were plenty of such opportunities before. Ever debugged your solution to a math problem? Ever had any kind of group-work in school? Ever had any kind of home-work that required planning? See what I mean? "Coding" is not the magical subject that will make people learn things they were not prepared or willing to learn before and certainly not in a short-term program like a "coding camp".
Sounds like you never learned to say "no". It is a critical survival skill in the IT industry, as so many people are so incompetent that they spend a lot of time looking for somebody that can do their work for them.
It does not need to be a blunt "no". It can be, "sure, I will be delighted, what cost object do I book this on?" or "sure, we will be happy to do that for you under an additional contract" or the like. That way, you can fend of people that just want your time and expertise for free and if they are willing to pay, you have the needed data to demand a raise.
From experience teaching coding, most students cannot generalize what they learn in coding, hence that is not what is happening. Incidentally, if your argument were true, math in school would have already accomplished that.
Well, Schindler did this for the first time and under extreme risk and pressure. He had to figure it out as he went, and if he had overdone it or seriously mis-stepped, he could also have saved a lot less people. It is understandable that his first go at the problem was probably non-optimal.
Any kind of racism is about some faction of a society defined by real or imagined racial characteristics feeling inherently superior, universally without any factual basis.
To be fair, the article says it is about supporting minorities, so they may have actually non-racist goals, and the Prince-quote is likely taken out of context.
Sounds about right.
Coding jobs are not the factory jobs of the modern age. They are highly specialized, need a lot of talent and dedication and coding above a very low difficulty and quality level can most decidedly not be taught to everybody. Please stop teaching these already disadvantaged youth something most of them will never be good at and where the available jobs on the lower levels are in a fast downwards spiral with regards to pay, job security and upwards mobility. You are just screwing them over.
Does that surprise anybody? The whole thing is a commercial simulation of a real social network, aiming at maximized profits and making all its users (and even additional people that never agreed to anything) their product.
That must be the real deal! Just how they show it in the movies!
I have one right here. Browser incompatibility or filtered off too much?
Well, a psychopath may _think_ he can do the "small ego" thing, but the truth will come out sooner or later.
Huh? I though he was behind this kind of thing?
Interesting. The two you mention are killers as well. Makes sense to me.
As to AVR, that is why I wrote Arduino "Hardware".
My impression is just that a student that actually wants to learn more about the RPi and then finds they cannot even get a decent datasheet and in addition find that most of it does not follow good engineering practices, then that is exactly the wrong message to send. My other impression is that unreliable network and USB is not something that will make working with this thing fun at all. Sure, by now there are enough work-arounds that it is mostly reliable. But still, bad engineering offends me, and even more so when it is targeted at "learning". Students should never be shown something crappy as "the way to do it".
I most certainly do not want to be the engineer responsible for a spectacular failure. Of course, the software field has far too many "engineers" and many of them bad in other ways, which makes the problem worse. But while I work on a level where I cannot only speak up, it is required that I speak up, I can understand the person that decides to keep quiet.
Still funny. Because I know it is not true. I got to admit that Eben Upton managed to sucker millions of people into buying badly designed hardware and praising him for it, but my aspirations in life do not run to "con-man". Incidentally, nobody is ever more irrelevant than an AC.
Amateur-level reverse psychology from an AC. That is a first for me. I did laugh though.
Now you are just disgracing yourself, and obviously so. Your knowledge is all surface, no depth, and it shows.
You have no clue what people I know and what _they_ did for their engineering PhD work or what they are now doing in academic and industrial research. Not everything gets published. And where did I actually imply that I was talking about _recreating_ Bunny's work? I rather obviously talked about doing the initial research. But you are probably so full of yourself that you cannot grasp that.