Meh. I once had a professor who was really big on 'tests of 2', exams where you knew ahead of time that the answer to every single question was '2', and you had to demonstrate that you understood the process for getting that answer by showing your work since the whole point of the class was learning to do something, not happening to get the right answer.
Common Core math is just following that pattern. The point is to learn the technique, not get the answer itself, since there are any number of shortcuts or tools one could use to get the answer elsewhere
Thing is, the 5 paragraph structure is not used for fiction in the first place, which might be why the OP is both against it and not making much sense. It is a tool of a type of writing the writer in question is not interested in... which makes their distaste for it all the more confusing, unless their actual objective is to draw more people into their type of writing. Ironically, the author's failure to make their point and explain how the parts connect to each other makes me think they would benefit from learning a bit more structured writing.
Maybe if I read the book it would be clearer, but from the interview I am not even really sure what problem he is trying to solve, which makes picking on a standard essay format are a 'solution' rather baffling.
I can not even figure out what kind of 'writing' the person is trying to save, much less from what. The 5 paragraph essay format is used to teach techniques for making an argument or trying to give an overview of a topic, but the author seems concerned with fication or other storytelling, which the pattern does not apply to in the first place.
So I suspect the author has some ideological or aesthetic ax to grind, but I am really unclear on what it is or how his points tie into it.
Yeah.. any time I hear people complaining that scientists are dogmatic and hate anything new or novel, I wonder if they have ever actually met a scientist outside having their ideas debunked.
I think when the person is talking about endpoints, they are referring to the websites and services that people connect to in order to do things or buy things... so the amazons and the facebooks of the world.
Heh. People did not ignore GPLv3, it is operating exactly as designed. GPLv3 prioritized people working in IT, protecting what they developed but opening up anything they liked playing with. Embedded developers were furious with the process since they were locked out, while people who made their living developing web applications and services were thrilled because the committee was made up almost exclusively of them.
I think the other big flaw of these types is that they are very selective in their view of greed, forgetting that people are people and that governments are not made up of some alternate lifeform with a different ethical drive than 'the right kind of people'. So they support the warlords, tinpot dictators, mob bosses, cult leaders, scammers, megacorps, whatever mini-state-like entity they think will give them a better deal or victimes.
Then the FCC would not care. Their whole thing is trying to regulate a limited shared resource: spectrum. If someone develops a communication method that does not have this problem, the FCC likely is not going to care since it does not impact the things they are tasked with regulating.
This. It was a US company using a US ground station for a US market, that had its permission denied by US regulators so they moved their launch to another country for that particular phase.
Which is a really questionable number since the new 'information economy' has not really added all that many new types of jobs and the ones it has tend to require tiny numbers of people. So far, only about 1-2% of jobs are of 'new' types.
Thing is, I would not call technologies like JavaScript, Ajax, VB, restful interfaces, etc, to be 'foundations'.
I think a big problem is students and employers have been treating college like expensive trade schools, expending time on teaching short lived 'hit the ground running' technologies rather than fundamentals and a good solid theoretical background. Classes should be using languages and technologies to teach a concept, not to teach the tech.
There are quite a few houseplants that do indeed do this, but there is a bit caveat : they do it in tiny amounts. That is what gets left out of the various 'houseplants that clean the air' articles, they do not mention that you need huge numbers of them to get a measurable decrease in whatever it is they capture. So researchers that put together a plan that removes significant amounts AND only requires a small number of plants is pretty huge.
Something I always found fascinating was that when content was available both via piracy and legitimate sources, the pirated content was less likely to be mislabeled or out of order, while the legitimate sources did not seem to put any effort into making sure they got anything right.
The only thing I can actually think of is it lets you offload the cost of maintaining the ledger onto the users rather than having your own DB servers.
Also do not forget that there is a constant trickle of BTC exiting the market. Every time someone loses their key, or someone dies with their wallet locked, whatever BTC they had is now inaccessible forever.
According to the best records we have, gold and silver jumped to prominence because of taxation. Before that humans mostly used barter or debt economies, but when governments needed to scale up and provide more services than walls and food stockpiles, they started using precious metals, and that caused them to become something valued as something other than building materials.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh. I once had a professor who was really big on 'tests of 2', exams where you knew ahead of time that the answer to every single question was '2', and you had to demonstrate that you understood the process for getting that answer by showing your work since the whole point of the class was learning to do something, not happening to get the right answer.
Common Core math is just following that pattern. The point is to learn the technique, not get the answer itself, since there are any number of shortcuts or tools one could use to get the answer elsewhere
Thing is, the 5 paragraph structure is not used for fiction in the first place, which might be why the OP is both against it and not making much sense. It is a tool of a type of writing the writer in question is not interested in... which makes their distaste for it all the more confusing, unless their actual objective is to draw more people into their type of writing. Ironically, the author's failure to make their point and explain how the parts connect to each other makes me think they would benefit from learning a bit more structured writing.
Maybe if I read the book it would be clearer, but from the interview I am not even really sure what problem he is trying to solve, which makes picking on a standard essay format are a 'solution' rather baffling.
I can not even figure out what kind of 'writing' the person is trying to save, much less from what. The 5 paragraph essay format is used to teach techniques for making an argument or trying to give an overview of a topic, but the author seems concerned with fication or other storytelling, which the pattern does not apply to in the first place.
So I suspect the author has some ideological or aesthetic ax to grind, but I am really unclear on what it is or how his points tie into it.
Yeah.. any time I hear people complaining that scientists are dogmatic and hate anything new or novel, I wonder if they have ever actually met a scientist outside having their ideas debunked.
Also cue the electric universe people with some explanation involving plasma.
Granted I mostly know professors, but wow would they be grateful for only 40-50 hours/week....
I think when the person is talking about endpoints, they are referring to the websites and services that people connect to in order to do things or buy things... so the amazons and the facebooks of the world.
Heh. People did not ignore GPLv3, it is operating exactly as designed. GPLv3 prioritized people working in IT, protecting what they developed but opening up anything they liked playing with. Embedded developers were furious with the process since they were locked out, while people who made their living developing web applications and services were thrilled because the committee was made up almost exclusively of them.
I think the other big flaw of these types is that they are very selective in their view of greed, forgetting that people are people and that governments are not made up of some alternate lifeform with a different ethical drive than 'the right kind of people'. So they support the warlords, tinpot dictators, mob bosses, cult leaders, scammers, megacorps, whatever mini-state-like entity they think will give them a better deal or victimes.
Then the FCC would not care. Their whole thing is trying to regulate a limited shared resource: spectrum. If someone develops a communication method that does not have this problem, the FCC likely is not going to care since it does not impact the things they are tasked with regulating.
This. It was a US company using a US ground station for a US market, that had its permission denied by US regulators so they moved their launch to another country for that particular phase.
They do have jurisdiction over US based companies though. Moving your violations overseas is always a risky move.
Which is a really questionable number since the new 'information economy' has not really added all that many new types of jobs and the ones it has tend to require tiny numbers of people. So far, only about 1-2% of jobs are of 'new' types.
Hrm.
Thing is, I would not call technologies like JavaScript, Ajax, VB, restful interfaces, etc, to be 'foundations'.
I think a big problem is students and employers have been treating college like expensive trade schools, expending time on teaching short lived 'hit the ground running' technologies rather than fundamentals and a good solid theoretical background. Classes should be using languages and technologies to teach a concept, not to teach the tech.
There are quite a few houseplants that do indeed do this, but there is a bit caveat : they do it in tiny amounts. That is what gets left out of the various 'houseplants that clean the air' articles, they do not mention that you need huge numbers of them to get a measurable decrease in whatever it is they capture. So researchers that put together a plan that removes significant amounts AND only requires a small number of plants is pretty huge.
The thing about historical value is you tend to not know what is going to be important until later.
I guess it all comes down to, do two wrongs make a right?
Ever notice how the people who seem to have a lot to answer for mostly just end up rolling in praise?
Something I always found fascinating was that when content was available both via piracy and legitimate sources, the pirated content was less likely to be mislabeled or out of order, while the legitimate sources did not seem to put any effort into making sure they got anything right.
The idiot should have just stuck to demanding western union.
Doubtful.
While this is a little more dramatic, it is not all that different from common types of scam mails that have been going out for decades.
Investors are more impressed with it?
The only thing I can actually think of is it lets you offload the cost of maintaining the ledger onto the users rather than having your own DB servers.
Yeah, but who is going to accept crypto if they can not convert it into money?
Also do not forget that there is a constant trickle of BTC exiting the market. Every time someone loses their key, or someone dies with their wallet locked, whatever BTC they had is now inaccessible forever.
According to the best records we have, gold and silver jumped to prominence because of taxation. Before that humans mostly used barter or debt economies, but when governments needed to scale up and provide more services than walls and food stockpiles, they started using precious metals, and that caused them to become something valued as something other than building materials.