Actually, my next step is to claim that your two steps are already too complex. Not because people are stupid, but because these two steps require a greater investment of time and energy than most people can realistically be expected to make. The moment you mentioned taking a class, you had already failed.
You seem to imply that programming is, at its core, a relatively small set of simple and easily-grasped concepts, but I can't say I've ever found compelling evidence that this is actually the case. Could you please list these basic skills that are so easy to master? I'm afraid I have to ask for a thorough list.
I'm not interested in excluding people from programming. However, there seems to be an underlying assumption from many of the coding-for-all types that programming "should" be much easier than it currently is. I'm putting "should" in quotes here because when many people see that word, they start thinking in ideological or moral terms. That's not my intended meaning. I'm talking about the logistics of programming: specifically, the idea that we have unnecessarily heaped huge amounts of complexity on top of something that is actually quite simple.
In order to open up programming to the masses, it must necessarily be simple and easily-grasped at its core. This is not because most people are stupid, but because most people cannot afford to spend a great deal of time and energy learning the concepts behind it. As currently understood, programming requires a large investment of these things, and most programmers today, by far, are people who have made that investment.
Can that time investment be reduced? To some degree, it probably can. But there are limits to how far something can be reduced, and I'm not convinced that programming can be reduced to a degree that would bring it to the masses. My reasoning for this is that I'm not convinced that the core concepts are as simple and easily-grasped as they're often made out to be. They seem simple to me nowadays -almost second nature, in fact- but I've been programming for years, I studied for years before that, and things didn't really start to click until I was a few years into my studies. Even nowadays, I still get moments where something suddenly clicks and my skills take a noticeable leap forward. This is not a hallmark of a simple field.
I believe that most of the people who set out to "simplify programming" are not too different from me. They might have learned certain concepts at different rates, but the things that seem simple to them now did not seem so simple when they first began. This is, I propose, because they aren't simple.
I am not "elite." All I did was allocate my time a little differently, and in ways that not everyone realistically can. I don't begrudge them this, because a lot of them allocated their time in ways that I couldn't, especially not after I made my choice. I respect and appreciate the skills they have that I don't, and I don't think I'm out of line in asking for the reverse. What makes this state of affairs unacceptable?
I'd like a strawman with a side order of false dichotomies, please? Oh, wait, no I wouldn't.
Nobody with any wit thinks that any given piece of technology is going to be well and truly flawless. Not even the technology used to land a plane. That's why we design them with multiple backups, failsafes, and alternatives. Rather than blindly trust the things we designed, we instead design so that we don't have to trust them. Even if something goes wrong, there's always another backup or alternative.
That's what this particular design fails to do. By hamstringing the last-resort failsafe (i.e. the pilots), it requires blind trust in the technology. That is simply not a sane approach.
Is there really no room for any other sort of reaction, in between blind faith and knee-jerk opposition?
From time to time, technology fails. This is a simple fact of life, and normally, the people making the technology will be the first to tell you this (the people selling the technology, not so much, which is a source of tension between the two). It doesn't take a Luddite to see that one needs to have failsafes in place. This is, in fact, what the word "failsafe" means.
It's unlikely for any company to get the "best qualified" in absolute terms, because every one of them is competing for the best qualified. But you go for the best qualified among whatever is available.
But ultimately, that's not the only factor. You need someone who will provide a decent value for what they're asking. If the best qualified person is asking well over the value of their work, then you've got to take that into consideration as well. People who you cannot afford are essentially unavailable, and so you're back to looking for the best-qualified person who is.
On the one hand, machines will never exceed human intelligence until we figure out how to model irrationality: the source of creative insight. But once we do that, there's nothing stopping them from growing into the same sorts of failings that we have.
On the other hand, maybe that will only make it more likely for them to come to these conclusions.
I'm inclined to agree. Even if one accepts his arguments, what he did is essentially a form of vigilantism, up to and including the strong risk of not ending well.
It doesn't sound to me like the grandparent was an antivaxxer. The rather unkind things they said about Jenny McCarthy should stand as a pretty strong argument that he (she?) isn't.
But it's true: vaccines are not perfect. They give a big boost, and they can help a lot of people, but the fact is that some of their effectiveness really does depend on having very high participation: herd immunity helps the immunized almost as much as it helps the un-immunized. Which only makes it more of a travesty that the antivaxxers are pulling this BS. It's not just that they're screwing their own kids out of immunity, though that would be bad enough on its own. But they're even managing to reduce the protection that the properly-immunized have. One could draw parallels to secondhand smoke.
There's also the fact that some people actually have a legitimate need to be leaning on herd immunity. For example, I've got all my shots except one. I reacted very badly to my first dose of whooping cough vaccine (which needs three doses), so the docs tried a half-dose for my second but I reacted just as badly, so they stopped it entirely. I'm vaccinated against everything else; they even found separate vaccines for measles and mumps (which are usually done alongside whooping cough in a combined vaccine called MMR) and gave me those, and I got through those just fine. But I've got that one hole in my immunity, and I had to get all kinds of waivers for exceptions and stuff going through school because of it. But I'm glad that the waiver system is there, and that I needed to go through it.
I keep up on the rest of my shots, partly out of a sense of duty: I must depend on the herd for protection from one disease, so it's even more important that I contribute back to the herd's immunity from every other disease. I've got no quarrel with those who actually react badly to a given vaccine (being one myself), and I don't even mind the relatively few people who avoid vaccines for religious reasons (though I'm not one of them). But the McCarthyite antivaxxer is another matter entirely: honestly, I'm starting to think that they should be classified as a public menace.
So yes, dear antivaxxers: stop spoiling herd immunity. Some of us need that. No love, me.
Constant review and scrutiny is supposed to be part of science. The successes of hoaxes like the Lysenko affair, the kinase cascade theory, Piltdown Man and cold fusion (but not the butt-head astronomer), more than one claim of inducing pluripotency in somatic stem cells, and countless others past and present show that even today, science-as-practiced often falls far short of science-as-idealized.
Oftentimes, this doesn't result in much trouble, because even when review and scrutiny don't happen, most scientists are basically honest. Their data is decent (or at least not deliberately flawed), their experiments are more or less sound, and things turn out to work anyway. But it is very easy to get lulled into a false sense of security by this assumption of basic morality (a sentence that could be applied equally well to some other things), and that sense of security is what allows the quacks and hoaxers to thrive even as their colleagues get caught all around them.
The other thing to note is that humans can directly understand distinct moments in time that are well under one second apart. Not all THAT much under -it varies a little from person to person, but it's usually between 1/50 and 1/60 of a second- but the fact remains that even if we try to measure the human "clock rate" as the smallest distinct points in time that we can distinguish, we're faster than 1Hz.
A more appropriate time scale would be to say that 50 clock cycles of CPU time equals one second of human time. The numbers don't look quite as impressive when you do this -a cold boot takes just under 650 years, as opposed to some 32,000 years- but it still drives the point home that humans are slow. Some of the smaller time scales also become useful as metaphors: for example, the main memory access takes 7 "seconds": much like something you have to struggle a bit to remember, but it still seems to come quickly.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "a looong" time ago: it's only been a year since Blink was even announced. But you're fundamentally correct.
No one is threatening to fire him, but very few people have the power to actually do that. By calling him unfit to lead, they're essentially doing the equivalent.
What do you mean by "that"? Whose comments are you talking about?
I don't actually know if I'd go that far. Your heuristic will pick out a single bully in a class of victims, but it will also pick out a single victim in a class of bullies, and I'd argue that the latter is by far the more common case.