Which is why you have to ensure what you measure actually produces desired outcomes and not create perverse incentives. Reminds me of teh Dilbert cartoon where the PHB announces a bug bounty and Wally says “I’m writing myself a new minivan”

Same...but the parents love it because they're cheap and easy to replace without data migration drama, and schools love 'em because of Google Classroom and Workspace functionality that Google gives to schools for peanuts while being checkbox compliant for bad-stuff-on-the-internet policies.

I'm grateful that I grew up learning to own my data...but I can appreciate that Google really made it seamless to not-worry about it.

Because automakers stopped giving car buyers some variant of the single-DIN/double-DIN dash cutout with standardized wire colors for a wire harness, so owners could put whatever they want into the dash if they didn't like the OEM offering. Carplay/AA was the loose successor to that; users had some agency with app selection, but GM has famously torpedoed that solution. Their arguments were so bad that it was almost transparent that they did it just so they could try and get subscription revenue from customers for functions Carplay provides out of the box.

Now, you might reasonably argue that a means of returning to user-replaceable infotainment head units is basically what you were getting at with "secure mount"...but my point is that these shouldn't be mutually exclusive. A stock stereo *should* have Carplay/AA, along with a means of replacing it if the user deems fit...but i do think it's reasonable to ask for both - base trims of econobox cars include Carplay; it shouldn't require aftermarket hardware to implement, and the owner shouldn't have to be stuck with a panhandling screen if they *don't* buy an aftermarket stereo.

Very true, but betting on games makes people more likely to watch tehm, driving viewership and TV revenue. Major sports may decry the impact of gambling and run all the Addicted? Call ... ads hey want, but the reality is gambling helps driver viewership which brings in money so you can do the math...

The best advice about gambling I got was "If you don't know who the sucker is at the table, it's you."

Great machines and well supported, with a good community as well.

It phones home, even with no subscription, unless you specifically opt out. How many drivers realize that?

I wondered how long. it would take before they did this. Businesses are good to start with because tehy are used to shipping via a carrier, Amazon is just one more carrier to see how much they can save with them vs UPS/FedEX/USPS. Home is harder because the last miles is variable; so you can't set fixed pickup routes and handling pickups takes longer tahn delivering and also need sorting so adding it to the drop-offs would be a challenge. However, a partnership with USPS to handle last mile and Amazon ships makes sense, FedEx and UPS already handle mail so it's not some new idea; Amazon could bid for the contract, and winning deprives competitors of lower margin freight that can be used to cube or weight out a plane. Amazon, meanwhile, gets volume for deadheading planes and trucks.

A quick read of TFA indicates that demand is a factor in cost allocation, so the locations where data sources are located should bear the brunt of the costs, and MD paying for whatever anticipated uses growth they will see.

Because schools have been focused on "not-getting-sued", and to a lesser extent, "graph of standardized test scores go up and to the right", for a while now. In fairness, the outcomes we generally want - students with working-understandings of the world, life skills, problem solving, critical thinking, social awareness, self-awareness, and emotional stability - are all *very* difficult to quantify. It's even more difficult if we understand that every child has the same finish line, but different starting lines. So, we end up with the lowest-common-denominator of "effective and consistent regurgitation", which is simply the easiest thing to quantify and compare.

Well...that's because the real problem was both hard and easy to bury. Tech in the classroom works when it has a defined purpose, teacher training, tangential connections to existing curricula, and an underlying understanding of the principles the tech is intended to streamline.

Anyone who has ever seen a SmartBoard demo will attest to this - those demos are expressly designed to showcase exactly how new tech can supplement the teaching of old principles, and it looks *amazing* when the tech is shown in such a capacity. The problem is that the Smartboard salesmen can polish a 20 minute demo to a mirror shine, leaving teachers to figure out how to use the thing effectively in their classroom for six hours a day for 180 days...and it invariably ends up being used as a 'next-slide-button' for Powerpoints and an expensive projection screen for Youtube videos 95% of the time.

Tech in the classroom works well when there is an instructor expressly seeking to use it as an augment to existing lessons. Tech in the classroom stops working well when an admin signs a big check to a vendor, dumps a pile of Chromebooks and an instruction manual on a teacher's desk, and says "figure it out"...especially when it's paired with "you must use it".

Last piece of the puzzle: "it's what everyone else is doing" is a depressingly effective way to mitigate criticism and litigation.

Put it all together, and THAT's why everyone tried to do OLPC...and the backlash against it isn't necessarily stupid people sliding from "tech good" to "tech bad", so much as a group of average people - some smart, some dumb - saw the general shift of education in general, combined with sales demos and best-scenario case studies, gave it a shot, and now have their *own* data which indicates that the product being sold didn't yield the intended outcome, and responding accordingly.

This isn't a defense of the districts who pushed it, just the opposite - it's an indictment of the districts who could have avoided the whole problem before they burned millions of taxpayer dollars on a system with a fundamental flaw for which they did not adequately budget, and was obvious to any focus group of teachers and technologists who were given enough say to shoot down the proposal.

Sadly, here's basically the scoreboard:

--Google Chrome
--Microsoft Chrome (Edge)
--Apple Chrome (Safari)
--Chinese Chrome (Opera)
--Crypto Chrome (Brave/Vivaldi)
--AI Chrome (Comet)
--Firefox
--Not-Firefox-Firefox (IceWeasel, Palemoon, Waterfox, etc.)

And, while I prefer Firefox myself...the fact is that web developers hated the drudgework of having to work in anything but a browser monoculture...and Google wanted the browser to be an OS unto itself, which is why the browser has hooks into everything else - overwriting the firmware on a phone is something that Microsoft got no shortage of crap for making such a thing technically-possible with ActiveX, but when Chrome does it to update a Pixel in recovery mode, it's "innovative".

More likely a “let’s pretend to do something until he’s gone” and “let’s see what of our needs you can handle.” Promises are easy to make to placate Trump and cost nothing.

People also reacted to ELIZA as if she was real, and this was sin the 1960’s, with far less computer power. I think it is more of a human desire to anthropomorphize things and deal with them as if they were human.

Reddit said so

"forty-five-press" not 45-47-press.