> I'd ban all technology in the classroom. What works is chalkboard and chalk, pencil and paper.
You've prohibited technology and then listed four technologies. "Technology" needs a more concrete definition. Calculators? Computers? TVs? Overhead projectors? Musical instruments?
Where is this possible? In the US, it is impossible. Non-profit's do not have owners, so they cannot be sold or changed to for-profit ones, so there are only two ways for a non-profit to "turn into" a for-profit:
* sell non-profit's assets to a for-profit company (so it's not turning into a for-profit company, and ownership of the non-profit can never be sold since it's not owned by anyone that can approve the sale, there are no shares, etc.) This is only legal if sold at fair market value. So the for-profit can't just take the IP, equipment, land, etc. It has to buy it at what anyone else would buy it at. It also has to be approved of by the state's government. Then the proceeds of the sale have to be transferred to another non-profit.
* form a for-profit subsidiary, which is still controlled by the non-profit. And the for-profit is owned by the non-profit, so the profits flow upward to the non-profit to be used to support the non-profit's agenda.
Either way, the non-profit cannot become a for-profit, and it takes corporate governance shenanigans (like the bullshit happening with OpenAI) to even approximate this. Essentially, it requires corruption and a non-profit board that is unaccountable to its stakeholders.
I suppose there's no accounting for taste, but from happy tree friends to xiaoxiao3's flash fights, indie animators made some pretty awesome stuff back then. My university experience included a lot of checking for new, cool flash animations back around 2002. Homestar Runner was another pretty big one.
edit: Space Ghost Coast to Coast was Flash. Harvey Birdman must've been, too.
Flash as an animation tool vs Flash as a web development tool are two very different discussions. There's overlap and they're related but still separate.
Flash was very interesting as an animation tool because it was at its core a vector drawing animation tool. All the scripting components were icing on the cake allowing automation of things that's incredibly tedious in traditional animation.
The fast vector animations made Flash very useful for web distribution. That's all well and good. But as it became the go-to for interactive websites the structure of Flash was antithetical to the web. Deep links became meaningless and content became locked behind Flash. Adobe was also a terrible steward of Flash and only put effort into Flash for Windows. Every other platform was an also-ran for them and the Flash experience was terrible.
The security of Flash was a bad joke on top of it all.
As an animation tool and delivery vector for interactive content beyond the abilities of browsers of the era it was useful. As the front end of the web it was an awful mess.
There's certainly assembly that maps directly to the machine language bytes, I assume you are talking about the version of assembly with the high level loop macros
Apr Fools Day really is the shittiest day to be online. For one thing, practical jokes/pranks are just gussied-up asshole behavior. For another thing, nerds generally SUCK at information-delivery pranks, which is what the Internet is full of on Apr 1.
Back in 2004 when free email services like hotmail were limited to 10-15mb, on April 1st the evening standard front page headline, which I saw in the office around 2pm, was something “Google lunched 1gb email”
I couldn’t believe they had fallen for an April fools so hard.
The only people this is relevant to are Albanians. I don't expect an Albanian to know about data centers being built in Texas. Hell, I don't expect Michiganders to know about them.
> The only people this is relevant to are Albanians.
That's a short-sighted view. Nature destruction is relevant to people everywhere. The locals might not even care much (unlike in this case, fortunately).
What if this construction project would wipe out animal species x, y or z? That's a permanent, irreversible loss for the world as a whole.
What if some species loses its breeding ground, decimating a population elsewhere? Or takes out a stop halfway a migration route?
Destruction of nature always has 2nd order effects. Don't ignore just because you don't live there.
It's not short-sighted. It's a recognition of time being a finite resource. One can't know everything.
Perhaps I should've said "this only matters to Albanians because everyone else has significantly more pressing matters than this in their own countries.
Musk isn't a natalist. The global population is going up. And yet, he complains about not enough births. Because he is a white supremacist. He wants white people to outnumber other races. The current state of affairs would be satisfactory to him if he were merely a natalist.
The population is very hard to count, believe it or not. In many places, the birth rate is well under replacement and in the others it's dropping quickly. Furthermore there's widespread fraud and deliberate miscounting which also makes it hard to really know.
So let's get this straight, you think the global population is not going up?
> In many places, the birth rate is well under replacement
Of course, in some places, this is true. But not globally. We don't need more births to keep population going on. There's a surplus of starving, fecund people globally. Musk amplifies and composes tweets about how white people are going to be a minority (we have been for basically all of human existence, but w/e), and he's even said things like if white people are a minority, we will all be killed. Which only makes sense if the assumptions underlying this claim are that white people are uniquely non-violent (i.e., supreme). Or it's an admission that everyone commits genocide against everyone else. Which is so transparently fictitious that someone as allegedly brilliant as he is couldn't possibly believe it.
The most generous description of him is that he's dumb. The least generous is he's a white supremacist.
Yes it's writing to disk (on a M1 mac which has terribly slow fsync). But, because of the transaction the fsync dance is done once per batch. Each row is the id + a 50 byte data blob.
There's only one index so there's no real write amplification. The numbers will go down as you add more data and indexes.
I'm not sure if you realize you're basically saying most people with an IQ two standard deviations above the mean should not be pursuing higher education. Currently 40% of young adults are in higher education in the US. (based on a quick google, percent could be wrong, i also saw 60% pursue it at some point)
As a heuristic, let's assume they're the 40% with the highest IQ.
If 90% of them shouldn't be there, then you're effectively saying only the highest 4% IQ individuals should be there.
Two standard deviations cuts out 95% of people. What a very high standard. And I'm not even getting into the mountains of research that higher education makes workers better at their jobs, ceteris paribus.
So you're saying genius-level people don't belong at uni.
The average university attendee's IQ is virtually indistinguishable from the average person's IQ.
People don't go to college because they're smart. They predominantly go so they can earn more money and/or work more enjoyable jobs when they graduate. Being smart isn't the main reason that adults encourage teenagers to pursue college either. It's mostly a matter of class reproduction; it's the "default" for anyone whose parents are college graduates.
And failing out once you get to the university isn't generally an IQ issue, either. Mediocre and slightly stupid people graduate from universities with degrees they've earned fair and square every year. You don't have to be smart to finish a degree. You do have to be reasonably prepared, and that's the primary issue.
IQ is about aptitude and credentials on specific topics are about knowledge and skills. It's the wrong thing to optimize for.
Besides, high-IQ students can still underperform for many of the same reasons that average-IQ students often do (e.g., under-preparation, lack of discipline, disorganization, mental illness, financial distress, unstable living situation). We should be better addressing those things before students get to a university no matter what their IQ is.
Beyond that, if you have good competency tests on both ends (i.e., the credentials before a four-year degree are accurate signals, and university degrees effectively prove a high degree of competency), who cares if someone manages to get those credentials by working harder while being dumber? I like working with clever people. I also like working with people who know their shit because they take their time to study and consider things. (When I'm lucky, I get to work with people who are both!)
> IQ is about aptitude and credentials on specific topics are about knowledge and skills.
Meaning it can be learned. Trained.
I'm not defending the metric. People use it like it is some innate thing that doesn't change over one's lifetime. In fact, a college education is a great way to increase your IQ.
It's also important to note that IQ is normalized. An IQ of 100 today is different than an IQ of 100 20 years ago. Notable, it's been increasing, so someone taking an IQ test in the year 2000 getting an IQ of 100 would have had an IQ of 130 had they taken it in 1950. That's an incredibly important piece of information needed to even do basic comparisons of IQs
> Meaning it can be learned. Trained. […] In fact, a college education is a great way to increase your IQ.
You make this argument on the assumption that the effect is causal. But in reality one cannot distinguish whether education raises IQ or whether people with higher IQs stay longer in college.
Whether things like "intelligence", "cognitive ability", and "aptitude" (some of which may be synonyms depending on your view) are innate vs. learned or fixed vs. variable over time are orthogonal to each other. And for each of those pairs, the answer may not be as simple as a binary division or even a gradient (it may decompose into something weirder, being causally determined by multiple factors where some of those factors are fixed and others aren't).
Moreover, both of those questions are separate from questions that get at what IQ measures (does it measure aptitude, does it measure factual knowledge, does it measure social knowledge or acculturation within a specific context, etc.).
Lots of things are easy to identify as both substantially genetically determined and variable over time and mediated by environmental factors, e.g., height. Lots of things are likewise easy to identify as significantly environmentally determined but also largely stable over time if not altogether fixed (e.g., personality, attachment styles).
It's also at least possible for all of the following to be true at the same time:
- IQ tests correlate with socioeconomic status
- IQ test scores vary over time and can be increased
- some IQ score increases, or some part of a given IQ score increase, reflects a genuine aptitude increase
- IQ tests are somewhat gameable in that training for IQ tests can increase scores so that some of the measured increase does not measure improved cognitive ability
where aptitude means something like fluid problem-solving ability, speed of learning, etc.
In short yes. Top 10% is not genius level. You see the outcome of this all the time at the PhD level. Even top 2% often just does not cut it when trying to do novel research. So many PhD’s get stuck in the post-doc adjunct cycle with never a real shot at tenure.
That is fine. Nothing to feel bad about. But also we don’t want our top 10% but not 2% to waste eight plus years and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Again, this is all dedicated on the high school diploma being actually hard and valuable. Associates degree replace undergrads, undergrad replace masters, etc.
> we don’t want our top 10% but not 2% to waste eight plus years and hundreds of thousands of dollars
Is it really your assertion that university is a waste of time for the most intelligent decile? Do you think four bucks in late fees at the public library remotely resembles a quality university education? I find people who didn't go to university often say things like this, because they've drunk some kind of far-right kool aid.
You've prohibited technology and then listed four technologies. "Technology" needs a more concrete definition. Calculators? Computers? TVs? Overhead projectors? Musical instruments?
reply