That's not inherently true. If there were a way to reliably destroy all the sock puppets, we should, and the world would be better off. For instance, reliable bot detection, or mechanisms by which major social networks could detect and prohibit bot-like activity that isn't labeled as such.
This is a nice idea, but we already know that organized criminals and state actors have no problem spending money to make money (or influence public opinion).
On top of that, social media isn't like email where a potential transaction fee increases the cost per person reached - a single post on a hot topic could get millions of views.
Only half joking, I feel like the majority of comments on the internet are garbage and not worth the time to read, and increasing friction with a nominal charge isn't necessarily a terrible thing.
A major part of this problem is teachers who treat "student knows something I don't (or aren't prepared to teach right now)" as a status challenge to be rapidly obliterated, rather than as an opportunity to encourage a student.
Many, many adults are extremely emotionally unprepared to accept the possibility that they may be wrong and a child may be right; they start from the assumption that this is an impossibility, and reason backwards from there.
Or, in the case where they do in fact know that the child is right, they nonetheless decide to prioritize asserting authority over demonstrating how a mature adult should handle being wrong. And thus do students learn bad examples of what to do when they're wrong.
Or just...not have students at wildly different levels in the same class.
At high school and more so in universities, there are distinct classes at different levels, and prerequisites for those classes, and students at different levels. Bring that system to all grades, rather than just having "age N = grade X" as one giant class with pressure for uniformity.
It's got to be easiee for a larger company to agree to. What would you be inspired to make that doesn't compete with an existing product if you work at big tech? It feels like they have products in all spaces.
Large companies tend to have very conservative legal departments, and be less supportive of exceptions and more willing to just not hire someone who has requirements outside their perceived norm. The question would be whether the company has ever established an exception path, typically by having a high-level hiring manager insist and running it up the chain.
Early on there was a lot more salvaging and makeshift components, and "I know someone who knows someone". Nowadays, though, I think the channel gets more than enough support that the answer is "I spent $12k and bought it".
Exactly. There is absolutely a threshold of money that will get me to implement FIPS. There is no threshold of money that will get me to say it's a good idea that has any value other than getting the (singular) customer that demands FIPS.
The core idea of FIPS doesn't seem terrible at first glance: a validation program to ensure known attacks are protected against.
The obvious issue is that known attacks have progressed significantly faster than FIPS has been updated, so in practice it doesn't defend against actual attackers. Compliance-based security pretty much always falls into this trap, and often is even worse because compliance with the standard is considered the maximum that can be done instead of the minimum that must be done. FIPS' fatal flaw is that in many cases it mandates a maximum security level that is now outdated.
It's a lot like building or electrical codes: if they're treated as the minimum as intended things stay safe, but if they're just barely complied with then buildings tend to fall down and/or catch fire.
For hand-writing, I just use the provided tools (Notebook and Reader). Notebook is OK, Reader is interesting but glitchy (it's their own software I think), but I'm sure Android ecosystem has solved these problems already - I just didn't yet feel the need to invest my time in discovering the best tools.
> Sennaar didn't gel with me, because language-based deduction imply an "arbitrariness" ("wobbliness"?) and mis-interpretations.
I definitely found the misinterpretations entertaining. It seems like they went to some amount of effort to anticipate potential misinterpretations, such that discovering those misinterpretations later would lead to amusement.
An important thing to keep in mind in American politics is the massive amount of voter suppression. Not voting doesn't inherently mean you were lazy or apathetic. It may well mean your vote was suppressed by any of a hundred tactics. Closing polling places in blue regions, requiring in-person voting on-the-day, restricting early voting, restricting vote by mail, failing at sending people ballots, spuriously dropping voter registrations...
They worked for Sony, too, by driving emulators out of business. But that doesn't make it illegal; it just means the infliction of massive legal defense costs are an effective tactic.
reply