Always cringeworthy when the average bum coder on HN with zero attention span or intellectual curiosity criticizes papers way out of their intellectual depth without reading further than the title. They are describing a new concept using "operating system" almost as a metaphor. This is a way to describe novel concepts. The article abstract makes the point clear and only takes a few seconds to read.
I can't help but think this tech war will be a positive for most of us. Both China and the US seem to think they need a rival, and if they want to do it over chips I think it can only spur on innovation in open source hardware.
Interesting, because as a former CS teacher I regularly did this. We'd go through some material and then I'd demonstrate it being used in different contexts, sometimes writing code that wouldn't work and sometimes writing poor code (while loops that should be for loops, inconsistent variable names, etc...) and the kids dug pulling it apart. It's much easier to critique than to create when you're beginning coding.
On that note I've been giving a lot of thought lately on how to develop curriculum which does a better job of teaching coding skills without necessarily needing code. Design thinking, but at a smaller scale, and later translatable to beginner level problem solving. Where kids get hung up is they often don't have a toolkit for this type of thinking, and building that up, while still making it interesting, is a challenge.
I did as well and believe my classes improved as a result.
I was taught "flow charting" as an attempt to teach coding without having to code. Of course, the teachers missed the point and forced template-driven syntactically correct charts that were more painful to build than the programs.
I have never taught software to complete novices, but I would think that it's difficult to teach something without teaching the thing. Have you tried the "wax on wax off" approach? That is, break things down into stunningly small pieces and build them together? You could spend days grounding on the fundamentals. (It works for training sports, rapid demonstrate/mimic/correct cycles on the basics)
I've tried something like what you're describing. Most years I'd start with a week or two of solving problems that don't involve any code at all.
For example, a day one teaser (these are 12 year olds) I liked to give was an 8 by 8 grid on the floor. They would get in groups and devise a way to move from a start to an end location. Then they would enact it, first me receiving their directions and later other students. I would of course take their directions a literally as possible, with them frequently getting exasperated ("that's not what I meant!").
We'd go from that to generalizing some rules and formulating steps. Once they had working rules, I'd add obstacles or change the start and end locations.
My goal with these was to develop the skill of seeing discrete, reusable steps, and how they mirror each other between problems. Learning loops and conditionals without ever writing coding, for example. Seeing the need for variables as storage, etc...
You're allowed bots, so why can't we archive it and make it more easily searchable? Those programming channels with QA style threaded answers would be great to log and make searchable. Is it against Discord's ToS or something?
What does racism have to do with something that is so obviously an economic based power struggle? Preventing Chinese researchers is not racist. There seems to be no problems allowing any other Asians in. It's a uniquely China issue, and for good reason given the extent of the IP theft and threats against US interests.
It's a huge benefit to the crowds at street level, and keeps the city cooler overall because all that concrete is not being turned into a heated surface. They're not generally there to shade the buildings, but the people and roads.
I think of the cities in Spain with the hottest climates, and I don't see a lot of crowds being protected by tree shade: Instead, the traditional design is narrower streets which aren't straight for very long, and even white cloth hanging across the street to provide the shade directly.
It's not that there's no trees, but you'll see them in parks and boulevards that might as well be narrow parks.
If anything, I see far more trees in the American midwest. Here the streets are very wide, with basically no foot traffic to speak of, and too much road for the number of cars that use the street in urban areas. You can definitely fit trees here, but that's because so much of that concrete is waste. The extra trees just mean more distances, and more distances means more parking lots and more concrete.
> The backlash has already spurred other ACLU chapters to declare that they don’t believe free-speech protections apply to events like the one in Charlottesville, and led the ACLU’s national director, Anthony Romero, to declare the group will no longer defend the right to protest when the protesters want to carry guns.
> “Until now,” lawyer and blogger Scott Greenfield wrote, the ACLU has “never quite come out and announced that they will refuse to defend a constitutional right. This announcement says that when someone seeks to exercise two rights at the same time, the ACLU is outta there.”
And their internal policy document listing out things that might stay their hand in an otherwise vigourous defense of free speech:
> * Whether the speaker seeks to engage in or promote violence
> * Whether the speakers seek to carry weapons
> * The impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression
> * The extent to which we are able to make clear that even as we defend a speaker’s right to say what they want, we reserve our right to condemn the views themselves
> * The extent to which we are able to mitigate any harm to our mission, values, priorities, and/or relationships
The first two I disagree with but could arguably see, but the last three are really the death of the ACLU as we knew it.
I think that the ACLU had a bigger impact with 60m in funding as a nonpartisan organization with a respected reputation than as a soldier in the culture war.
That was before the ACLU got hollowed out and skinsuited by activist groups. I'd trust the ACLU of 10 years ago to fight this, but not the one of today.
I mean, to be fair this doesn't really pertain to the sort of Constitutional legal questions that the ACLU famously takes a hardline stance on. I don't think the ACLU endorsing private censorship is clearly at odds with their overall mission. (As opposed to say their going soft on hate speech laws, which clearly has 1A implications.)
I'd rather have laws that prohibit free speech than have the government be able to stifle speech by pressuring large monopolistic organizations behinds closed doors.
That resulted in lots of funding from the anti-Trump crowd. "Trump derangement syndrome" meant previously unimaginable funding.
They needed to do something with the money, so they staffed up, using the new staff to double down on the Trump-fighting.
Before 2016, there were a few claims that the ACLU was biased toward liberals. Afterward, you'll find many articles even from outlets like the Atlantic and the New York Times lambasting the ACLU as openly partisan. Just do a search for them!
So if this is censorship is intended to keep things safe and liberal, people suppose that the ACLU would support the censorship.
This is exactly what happened. They were flooded with money at the same time they were being flooded with new graduates that had strange ideas about what people shouldn't be allowed to do.
Most Chinese have probably never given a thought as to whether they are pro science or not. That seems to be more an American preoccupation. My Chinese relatives have all sorts if unscientific beliefs based around food and folk superstitions, and they are highly educated.
This might be well true, but they are also likely to believe science as well. It's just the two live in an easy parallel where one isn't necessarily valued over the other-- good or bad.
In the US the camps are FIRMLY pro or against science or many other topics, so things get alot more polarized.
I don't think US camps are anti-science as much they are against a small subset of science which disagrees with their religious beliefs. There are no anti-relativity or anti-magnetism groups as far as I know.
In China there are plenty of anti-vaxxers as well as a large number who would balk at anything implying being gay is biologically normal. They can't really form groups for this sort of thing, obviously, so you don't hear about it as much.
