This forum (HN) attracts certain population that wants to do things, to understand, to share relatively well based opinions and have a discussion.
But look around, look at the new hires in the other departments. And by new I mean young, in their 20. A lot of them welcome this kind of things, they evaluate by popularity and likes. The marketing begin the AI bubble knows this, and so it pushes for it. Make it popular is more important than make it useful, because there is a tipping point were is popular enough that we capitulate.
Did they, though? Polling fairly consistently shows that people don’t _like_ this stuff, and there’s some evidence that the more familiar with it they become the less they like it. I think Microsoft et al were betting on people liking it (that was certainly their thinking with Clippy, too) but that doesn’t seem to be working out for them.
My sister is ripping her hair out dealing with the interns at he job being extremely tech illiterate with anything thats not app-ified. Many don't know what files are, and are needing run through computer basics because everything they have used has anything technical abstracted away. The post-iPhone generation just wants there hand held and anything technical scares them. Microsoft Bob was just too ahead of the curve.
Not only have the people changed but it is the belief of the elites at the top that humanity is entering a new era of hack-ability. They want to use these AI systems to rewrite humanity into their vision of the future.
Yuval Noah Harari talking about how the new "gods" are the data-centers and how free will is dead in the age of AI.
https://youtu.be/QuL3wlodJC8
Well, for the purpose of this conversation the people at the top of the food chain believe free will exists. They also believe that they can eliminate it with AI and Biomedical manipulation.
The while message of the article is to trash talk the departing editor accusing her of political left bias... which in it self (the trash talking) is a political statement from the conservative side.
To the author of the article: you are no better than her...
Can you reconcile that view with the paragraph at the end?
>That doesn't mean the editor needs to be apolitical or that there's no role for SciAm to chime in on social justice issues in an informed manner, with the requisite level of humility and caution. It simply means that Scientific American needs to get back to its roots—explaining the universe's wonders to its readers, not lecturing them about how society should be ordered or distorting politically inconvenient findings.
No need to reconcile because one thing does not excuse the other.
If I go complaining that you go around beating people up, and that is why I will go and beat you up, and at the end I claim that it is ok because I agree with hitting people is ok doesn't excuse my action.
Also, stating the obvious (SA needs to get back to its roots) serves in this case as a straw man argument, the point was how bad an inexcusable was the editor behavior, not what the roots of SA should be.
This article is closer to the son of the president in the "Don't look up" movie than anything else. It tries to push the previous editor to a square of just do scientific work... but there is a point, in defense of the editor, where people claiming that the earth is flat need to be push back. Objective truth needs to prevail regardless of how people feel about it politically, and it is ok, in my book, to defend that
The point of the article is that SA can't sacrifice science to push propaganda. That's it.
Like this point of yours:
>but there is a point, in defense of the editor, where people claiming that the earth is flat need to be push back. Objective truth needs to prevail regardless of how people feel about it politically, and it is ok, in my book, to defend that
Is true, for the article, not for the editor. That's his whole point.
1. Defending science as objective truth is not propaganda, so the editor did not engage un such.
2. The article it self is not about science, but it is weasel propaganda on it self because accusing of propaganda to the editor is a form of propaganda that is presented as "reasonable" but the intended effect is to try to call propaganda what is not.
I genuinely have no clue what you are talking about.
>1. Defending science as objective truth is not propaganda, so the editor did not engage un such.
A headline like "Why the Term 'JEDI' Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion." has absolutely, completely nothing to do with "defending science as objective truth". Within the article political views are pushed, with science being largely irrelevant to the case.
>2. The article it self is not about science, but it is weasel propaganda on it self because accusing of propaganda to the editor is a form of propaganda that is presented as "reasonable" but the intended effect is to try to call propaganda what is not.
The article does not attempt to be seen "about science" at any point. It's not weaseling at any point, it's point is made very clearly. It even makes the point that propaganda isn't necessarily wrong
So far, sort of. Continuous does have the advantage of having both C# and F# (although it’s a bit crashy these days on modern iOS). I can take the code I test there and build it on a desktop system as well, but haven’t figured out how easy it is to round-trip stuff in this yet (should be as easy, if not easier, but re-using libraries might be trickier).
My attempt of ms access for the web. It is version 0.8, then I hit caveats and limitations of using blazor, so i am in the process of rewriting it on asp.net core 7 mvc
tables, forms and reports are defined in xml, it has basic querying facilities and account and security management. It uses Lua for backend scripting. It allows for full app development in the browser. database is sqlite, but i made an orm that is database vendor agnostic just in case
Created an app for simple course management which is working fine, including certificate generator.
"I wish I knew what happened, or how to replicate it. It’s involved more upfront design than I normally do, by necessity. I like feeling my way forward in general, but there are problems where the approach just doesn’t work"
Yes, immediate (or soon enough) gratification feels good... To me, and maybe is because I am an old fart, this is the difference between programming and engineering.
I have the disorder and one of my kids have the disorder too. We both are in the autism scale (Asperger's)
As a kid, until 8 or 9 years old, my birthday parties with my friends (kids too) running around and screaming will push me to withdraw to my room and have a meltdown. I remember this stressing my parents because they wanted me to form social bonds, and in the 70s there was no vocabulary to describe what was happening to me. But this help me understand what was happening when I saw my kid doing the same.
The good news is that as we grow up we create coping mechanisms, so this is transitory and most likely will get better. Respecting the fact of having a quiet place to be helps. The clinging is the looking for safety, always welcome it or she will feel rejected at a vulnerable moment.
Which leads me to a warning. Trying to process the sensory overload put us in an emotionally vulnerable position, which in school leads to been a bully victim. Even in high school there was a guy that scream around me so I would contract and he could beat me. Same thing with my son who end up shovel into a locker. We had to involve the police on this one. Things get better around college when bigger responsibilities push away bullies.
Identify something that she likes to do and bring her peace, then provide that when she is overloaded so she can have tools to cope
Their curriculum is very VERY far from a completed CS curriculum. Maybe the project is not finished, and when it is it will cover everything that a computer scientist needs to know
