Because it makes us all a little poorer when people with disproportionate skill at coding end up not even considering the profession because it wasn't an option at their school and they weren't willing to start from scratch in college and play catch up.
A significant portion of the population is barely computer literate, but coding is the thing we're focused on?
This whole business of pushing students to code is mainly about increasing the supply of programmers in a push to devalue the profession.
Disagree. That may be some people's motivation, but it's not mine. I don't even want to "push" students to code. I just want it to be an option for them if it's something they're interested in. Which is, apparently, not the case for every student, since some schools don't offer it at all. I realize that schools can never offer every subject a student might be interested in, but C.S. seems sufficiently non-niche that it ought to be universally offered.
We have plenty of people that know how to program...
[Citation Needed]. Also, define "plenty".
...the problem tends to be that businesses refuse to pay for the necessary training to take somebody that knows how to program and get them good at it.
My personal opinion is that directed training is not going to take someone who "knows how to program" and make them "good at it". Also not of the opinion that businesses should be obligated to foot that cost (*). If you want to be "good at it" then you get there on your own dime, then come apply for my position.
(*) It may be the case that "footing that cost" is the most cost-effective way to get quality devs. But it also may not be. For instance, it could be more cost-effective to just pay a little more and hire someone who is already "good at it".
Plus, it's not like these things can't be learned outside of school.
That's true of almost any subject, though. You can learn history on your own. Foreign language. Calculus. Is that a compelling argument for not offering these subjects at the high school level? I don't think so. IMO, if there's a popular AP test for it, your school should probably offer it, if only because by not offering it you largely deny your students the chance to acquire college credit. I realize that "popular" is open to interpretation. In general, given the proliferation of different AP tests since I was in high school, I wish more of them were offered everywhere. For sufficiently gifted (or motivated) students it's such a great way to reduce their college costs.
Like the idea of shaming schools/districts into offering CS classes. And I say that as someone who opposes making CS a required elective and/or graduation requirement. While not everybody should take CS in high school, it seems criminal that some kids are attending schools that don't even offer it.
Without numbers from other non-US countries to compare against, we can't say whether 27% and 30% are actually that bad. I'd like to see comparison numbers for other commonwealth countries (UK, Australia, New Zealand), the U.S., and possibly Mexico since it's close to the US. It's possible Canada's numbers are "normal".
How would you have rental space at all without landlords? Someone has to own the property if the renter doesn't, right? Or is your preference to have no rental space at all? That seems unrealistic.
Personally, I would not object to a law forbidding anyone from renting (on AirBnB) a space they don't personally occupy at least 50% or more of the time. It's my understanding the current NYC law goes way beyond that. I agree with those who support making it impossible for someone to purchase a building, or a condo unit, simply to use it as an AirBnB rental space 100% of the time. That is, unless said person is willing to collect hotel taxes from their short-term renters.
On my last family vacation to NYC I stayed in an AirBnB in Washington Heights owned by a couple with two kids, both teachers. They were in Israel for the summer visiting family and rented out their place (with all their stuff in it) to help finance the trip. Staying there saved me at least $150/night over a two week trip and put money directly into the pocket of "real New Yorkers". Not some big landlord or hotelier.
The report said that Airbnb's influence cost New Yorkers $616 million in additional rent...
Three questions:
1. How much did New Yorkers earn from renting their property through AirBnB?
2. How much did tourists to New York save from not having to pay exorbitant hotel prices?
3. How many more tourists came to New York (and spent their money at shops, etc.) because it was possible to rent a place (for less money) through AirBnB?
Key words from what I wrote: "simple, easy-to-understand-for-a-non-technical-person terms".
If you're presented with an EULA that's not overly burdensome and you click OK without reading it then that's on you, and I don't feel sorry for you. Granted, most EULA's are currently what I'd consider to be "overly burdensome".
I meant a boolean thing, in the sense that you're either on the platform or not. Not some sort of granular controls for people who are on the platform. Tell a prospective user, before he or she signs up, "We will collect X, Y and Z and allow A, B and C to access that data under conditions R, S and T". Then you can either sign up, or not.
Seems like proper labeling requirements would do the trick. Have them state up front in simple, easy-to-understand-for-a-non-technical-person terms what data they collect, who they share it with, and what someone could do with it. Then, if people still want to use the service, they can, and they'll do it with eyes open.
...I was able to stay two weeks in NYC with my family (2 adults, 2 kids) in a clean 1200 sq. foot. two-bedroom apartment in Washington Heights for $120/night. Comparable hotel would have cost me $300/night at least. And my (14 nights * $120/night) went mostly into the hands of an actual family living in NYC (two public school teachers with 2 kids of their own) instead of, say, "Hilton" or "Marriot".
Figure that will change if/when we transition the U.S. civilian fleet of automobiles from gasoline to electricity. The amount of juice needed to fully replace gas-powered cars is enormous.
Yeah, I'm just basing 250ms on what I've gotten before when I used in-flight WiFi. It's not great, but as long as it's consistent w/ no spikes or dropped packets, it's serviceable. Just tethered to my iPhone right now (AT&T LTE) and got 90-120ms to same-continent.
You misunderstand why someone would be banned. They'd be banned for being obnoxious and irritating other team mebers, not for their political opinions per se.
I have an iPhone 7. Here's what I want in my next phone:
1. Longer battery life
2. Better signal reception, both cellular and WiFi.
3. Even better camera; it's already pretty good.
4. Even more durable; screen less likely to crack, more resistant to exposure to liquids, etc.
5. Even brighter screen to help w/ viewing in sunny conditions.
That's about it, really. Don't need a bigger screen, don't need the phone to be thinner or lighter, don't need more pixels, don't need gimmicky new features like facial recognition, don't even really need a faster CPU, more memory or more storage.
Do you think anyone will be more likely to contribute to the project because of the code of conduct, along with any change in actual behavior it brings about (supposing it does actually lead to a change in behavior)? In theory, I could see that being the case. Having a creep and/or asshole on a team can drive people away. Removing that guy makes the team more attractive. To the extent this code results in more of "those guys" being removed, it could have a positive effect.
So you have a code, but write into it that it's not an exhaustive list and that team members can still be removed for reasons not explicitly listed in the code of conduct. That sort of gives you the best of both worlds. If someone does something that is included in the code, then the code serves to shut down any objection on their part that you're being arbitrary. Since the thing they did is listed right there in the code. If someone does something damaging that merits dismissal but isn't enumerated in the code, then you let them go and reference the portion of the code stating it's only a partial list of dismissal-worthy behaviors.
Plenty of eccentric people manage to not be flaming assholes. Personally, filtering out talented assholes from my teams seems like a net win. I lose the talented assholes, but it becomes easier to attract (and retain) talented non-assholes who are unwilling to work with assholes.
Can you give an example? I agree certain parts of it are unnecessarily vague and should be rewritten.
...people feeling like they have some God-given right never to be offended in any way...
I'm not sure that's the sentiment being expressed here. The authors of the code aren't saying, "nobody should ever be offended anywhere"; they're saying "we don't want people to have to endure offense in order to be a contributing member of our team". Does that seem unreasonable? Obviously a lot hinges on what one defines as a "reasonable" cause for taking offense. If I say "Good morning" to someone and they take offense at that, that's not reasonable and it's on them. If I say, "Whassup my nigga?" then maybe it's on me to modify my greeting.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it makes us all a little poorer when people with disproportionate skill at coding end up not even considering the profession because it wasn't an option at their school and they weren't willing to start from scratch in college and play catch up.
This whole business of pushing students to code is mainly about increasing the supply of programmers in a push to devalue the profession.
Disagree. That may be some people's motivation, but it's not mine. I don't even want to "push" students to code. I just want it to be an option for them if it's something they're interested in. Which is, apparently, not the case for every student, since some schools don't offer it at all. I realize that schools can never offer every subject a student might be interested in, but C.S. seems sufficiently non-niche that it ought to be universally offered.
[Citation Needed]. Also, define "plenty".
My personal opinion is that directed training is not going to take someone who "knows how to program" and make them "good at it". Also not of the opinion that businesses should be obligated to foot that cost (*). If you want to be "good at it" then you get there on your own dime, then come apply for my position.
(*) It may be the case that "footing that cost" is the most cost-effective way to get quality devs. But it also may not be. For instance, it could be more cost-effective to just pay a little more and hire someone who is already "good at it".
That's true of almost any subject, though. You can learn history on your own. Foreign language. Calculus. Is that a compelling argument for not offering these subjects at the high school level? I don't think so. IMO, if there's a popular AP test for it, your school should probably offer it, if only because by not offering it you largely deny your students the chance to acquire college credit. I realize that "popular" is open to interpretation. In general, given the proliferation of different AP tests since I was in high school, I wish more of them were offered everywhere. For sufficiently gifted (or motivated) students it's such a great way to reduce their college costs.
Like the idea of shaming schools/districts into offering CS classes. And I say that as someone who opposes making CS a required elective and/or graduation requirement. While not everybody should take CS in high school, it seems criminal that some kids are attending schools that don't even offer it.
Without numbers from other non-US countries to compare against, we can't say whether 27% and 30% are actually that bad. I'd like to see comparison numbers for other commonwealth countries (UK, Australia, New Zealand), the U.S., and possibly Mexico since it's close to the US. It's possible Canada's numbers are "normal".
How would you have rental space at all without landlords? Someone has to own the property if the renter doesn't, right? Or is your preference to have no rental space at all? That seems unrealistic.
Personally, I would not object to a law forbidding anyone from renting (on AirBnB) a space they don't personally occupy at least 50% or more of the time. It's my understanding the current NYC law goes way beyond that. I agree with those who support making it impossible for someone to purchase a building, or a condo unit, simply to use it as an AirBnB rental space 100% of the time. That is, unless said person is willing to collect hotel taxes from their short-term renters.
On my last family vacation to NYC I stayed in an AirBnB in Washington Heights owned by a couple with two kids, both teachers. They were in Israel for the summer visiting family and rented out their place (with all their stuff in it) to help finance the trip. Staying there saved me at least $150/night over a two week trip and put money directly into the pocket of "real New Yorkers". Not some big landlord or hotelier.
Three questions:
1. How much did New Yorkers earn from renting their property through AirBnB?
2. How much did tourists to New York save from not having to pay exorbitant hotel prices?
3. How many more tourists came to New York (and spent their money at shops, etc.) because it was possible to rent a place (for less money) through AirBnB?
Key words from what I wrote: "simple, easy-to-understand-for-a-non-technical-person terms". If you're presented with an EULA that's not overly burdensome and you click OK without reading it then that's on you, and I don't feel sorry for you. Granted, most EULA's are currently what I'd consider to be "overly burdensome".
Could you not go in and revoke permissions granted to the apps?
I meant a boolean thing, in the sense that you're either on the platform or not. Not some sort of granular controls for people who are on the platform. Tell a prospective user, before he or she signs up, "We will collect X, Y and Z and allow A, B and C to access that data under conditions R, S and T". Then you can either sign up, or not.
Data here: https://collegecompletion.chro...
I want to see the list of which of the ~290 colleges with 70+% 6-year graduation rates have opted *not* to participate.
Seems like proper labeling requirements would do the trick. Have them state up front in simple, easy-to-understand-for-a-non-technical-person terms what data they collect, who they share it with, and what someone could do with it. Then, if people still want to use the service, they can, and they'll do it with eyes open.
...Chicago, or Austin, or Denver, or Salt Lake City / Provo.
They missed a golden opportunity to hire exactly 1337 employees to work on Alexa.
...I was able to stay two weeks in NYC with my family (2 adults, 2 kids) in a clean 1200 sq. foot. two-bedroom apartment in Washington Heights for $120/night. Comparable hotel would have cost me $300/night at least. And my (14 nights * $120/night) went mostly into the hands of an actual family living in NYC (two public school teachers with 2 kids of their own) instead of, say, "Hilton" or "Marriot".
Figure that will change if/when we transition the U.S. civilian fleet of automobiles from gasoline to electricity. The amount of juice needed to fully replace gas-powered cars is enormous.
Yeah, I'm just basing 250ms on what I've gotten before when I used in-flight WiFi. It's not great, but as long as it's consistent w/ no spikes or dropped packets, it's serviceable. Just tethered to my iPhone right now (AT&T LTE) and got 90-120ms to same-continent.
Cable and 5G? I'd take DSL quality speeds if it came with with reasonably low (and consistent!) latency. Say, 250ms to popular sites.
You misunderstand why someone would be banned. They'd be banned for being obnoxious and irritating other team mebers, not for their political opinions per se.
Granted. But whether you work on their project is up to them.
I have an iPhone 7. Here's what I want in my next phone:
1. Longer battery life
2. Better signal reception, both cellular and WiFi.
3. Even better camera; it's already pretty good.
4. Even more durable; screen less likely to crack, more resistant to exposure to liquids, etc.
5. Even brighter screen to help w/ viewing in sunny conditions.
That's about it, really. Don't need a bigger screen, don't need the phone to be thinner or lighter, don't need more pixels, don't need gimmicky new features like facial recognition, don't even really need a faster CPU, more memory or more storage.
Do you think anyone will be more likely to contribute to the project because of the code of conduct, along with any change in actual behavior it brings about (supposing it does actually lead to a change in behavior)? In theory, I could see that being the case. Having a creep and/or asshole on a team can drive people away. Removing that guy makes the team more attractive. To the extent this code results in more of "those guys" being removed, it could have a positive effect.
So you have a code, but write into it that it's not an exhaustive list and that team members can still be removed for reasons not explicitly listed in the code of conduct. That sort of gives you the best of both worlds. If someone does something that is included in the code, then the code serves to shut down any objection on their part that you're being arbitrary. Since the thing they did is listed right there in the code. If someone does something damaging that merits dismissal but isn't enumerated in the code, then you let them go and reference the portion of the code stating it's only a partial list of dismissal-worthy behaviors.
Plenty of eccentric people manage to not be flaming assholes. Personally, filtering out talented assholes from my teams seems like a net win. I lose the talented assholes, but it becomes easier to attract (and retain) talented non-assholes who are unwilling to work with assholes.
Can you give an example? I agree certain parts of it are unnecessarily vague and should be rewritten.
I'm not sure that's the sentiment being expressed here. The authors of the code aren't saying, "nobody should ever be offended anywhere"; they're saying "we don't want people to have to endure offense in order to be a contributing member of our team". Does that seem unreasonable? Obviously a lot hinges on what one defines as a "reasonable" cause for taking offense. If I say "Good morning" to someone and they take offense at that, that's not reasonable and it's on them. If I say, "Whassup my nigga?" then maybe it's on me to modify my greeting.