Oy. Give it a rest already.
Oy. Give it a rest already.
Doesn't help when you have the wrong target measurement.
Fiorina and Jobs were like Bush and Putin. Said Bush of Putin, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy."
"Learning styles" takes an undeniable truth, that different people find it easiest to learn in different ways, exaggerates it to a falsehood (i.e., that people can only learn the way that's easiest for them), and then converts it to BS (e.g., "I'm a visual thinker, that's why I'm no good at math.")
The underlying mistaken assumption is that education should never require you to try something you find difficult or unnatural. If you are indeed a visual learner, that's something that you and your teachers can and should exploit, but you need to learn how to learn in modes that don't come easily to you. Life doesn't always give you a choice of forms for lessons you need to learn. Sometimes you ought to read the manual; other times there is no manual. You need to be adaptable to either case.
It's important to be sensitive to the fact that some students are introverts -- although that doesn't necessarily mean "shy" or "socially awkward"; that's just a stereotype, it's not what "introverted" means. But it is undeniably true that group work comes less naturally to introverts than extroverts. Nonetheless they still need to learn to work that way, just as extroverts need to learn how to work independently. If you just taught students to be able to do what comes naturally to them, what's the point of education?
Well, that's not a fault of group work per se, but of teacher. And you obviously didn't learn one of the important lessons of group work, which is what to do about colleagues who don't pull their weight.
Sorry. Can hear you over the deafening roar of Internet tutting.
Self-amusement can't be a practical purpose for a hobby project?
It's one of those things we couldn't have imagined when the Internet was thrown open to anyone back in the early 90s. We didn't anticipate it would be used to spread cat memes, revive white supremacist ideology, or more to the point usher in a new golden age or priggery.
I know this is a popular sentiment, but I really disagree. It's not possible for a CEO to have such precise and detailed vision into a company that he or she can preclude the possibility of nefarious action by everyone in the company.
Everyone who's been working for more than a couple years will likely find themselves having to decide whether to tell someone up the chain there's a problem. Now imagine the CEO, who is at the top of lots of chains. You're expecting that bad news always finds its way to the top, and that one person has the time to supervise those chains enough that unreported problems are ferreted out.
The blame the CEO for everything mentality is just another way of saying "We don't know if it's your fault, but we're blaming you." I don't think an innocent CEO should fall on his sword in cases like this. A genuinely innocent CEO should be leading the charge and cleaning house.
I can't imagine the appropriate regulators have the skills needed to audit code of that complexity/size to weed out nefarious behavior. If they hired the skills, I can't believe they could afford it.
It'd be much safer to make it a patch that's not stored in the VCS at all. Legit code lives over here in $REPO. Unethical, illegal patch lives elsewhere and is maintained separately. The number of people who knew about this isn't necessarily that large.
It's *possible* they were both unethical and dumb enough to leave this in plain sight, it's just not necessary.
But like any other commodity experience can be purchased.
Presidential candidates have only themselves to blame, really. For once, I'd love to have a president's campaign promises include only things that a president actually have power to do. Instead, they promise like a monarch and then deliver like a president.
The hell with a fine. No jail?
You're missing the whole point. It's not about being efficient. It's very deliberate inefficiency, in fact.
If you're arguing that government shouldn't do this, back up a couple to where I said: "There's a whole other question of whether government SHOULD do this...."
I'm not convinced they should. I'm convinced they can.
The premise, which was stated in TFA, is that technology is making some jobs disappear. That's been true for centuries, the canonical example being buggy whip manufacturers and the subsequent absence of society's collapse. It's NOT a given that the economy changing is a bad thing.
What if we do automate enough that "get a job" is simply unworkable? Some segments of society will be fine, including most of us (educated, probably reasonably well off). Some won't. I argued the other side of this here once, pointing out that there's TONS to do in areas like medical research. Someone wisely pointed out to me that not everybody is cut out to do medical research. It's true. What do you do with all the people who are good taxi drivers, but we no longer need taxis? Or the ones who flip burgers now, til we automate that? Or the delivery guys who are replaced by autonomous vehicles or drones? I'll be the first to admit this is speculative future, but what if? We can't all mow each other's lawns.
What DO you do if the pool of required labor is smaller than the pool of people?