Charos

I think the value here is more for non-technical (or just less-technical) folks. "Just dive into a startup" is fine advice for programmers, but for those of us who aren't at that skill level, it's easier said than done. Nobody wants to hire a 'product guy' with financial skills and business acumen to help them manage their pet project. I see this program as being valuable to allow semi-technical folks like myself to learn more directly useful skills without spending years becoming a developer first.

Absolutely true. A tablet isn't as capable as a PC is, yet. Trying to do my taxes on my Nexus 7 would be a nightmare. But it satisfies a very good use case: a cheap, portable device for casual computing and media consumption. The only fundamental thing standing in the way of tablets completely eclipsing PCs is the input method. If we can get a good replacement for the keyboard/mouse on a touchscreen device, the days of traditional PCs could be numbered.

Freedom in learning is so, so important. This case study illuminates that pretty well. It's a great look into an example of allowing children to truly learn at their own pace, with gentle guidance regarding subject areas and provided with the resources they need to discover new knowledge. The story is heartwarming and a great read, and a useful comparison to the modern American style of education.

As others have pointed out, there is no magic bullet. This method would work incredibly well for 90% of subjects taught in elementary school. However, for non-English language learning, additional guidance would be needed - the teachers could nudge them towards Duolingo, various online multilingual dictionaries, etc. I do believe that this system could be used as the core of a new teaching paradigm, but it is not solely sufficient for a complete learning experience to the standards that we have come to expect in America.

For developing countries (which, sadly, Mexico bears much resemblance to), this could be an incredible tool. An internet-connected computer and guidance from involved teachers can easily produce students who are ready to help lift their countries out of economic malaise. In this way, I believe the internet can serve as the Great Equalizer many of us hoped it would someday become. If this method used alone is capable of producing students 70% as capable (by some nonexistent perfect metric) as those in first-world nations, that would still be an enormous leap forward for developing nations. I think these guys are really on to something in this regard.

I find it interesting that as our civilizations mature, we find ourselves oscillating back away from the industrialized American education system paradigms and towards a more holistic, broadly-focused educational strategy using qualitative methods rather than quantitative objectives. Students are not a homogeneous population, and historically we have tried to deal with this issue by ignoring it and cramming them all into the same mold, with minor variations. It makes me glad to see that we are starting to consider that we should instead allow for this variance by designing systems with broader definitions and qualitative goals, to allow the students to grow in the directions they are best suited or disposed to.

To be cynical, a lot of things are possible. It's possible that anaerobic bacteria still live in small pockets beneath the surface of Mars. It's possible, if unlikely, that extremophiles survive on the sweltering surface of Venus, or floating in its sulphurous clouds.

Of course, the fact that these things are possible is still incredibly cool. While this article lacks much technical substance, this is the kind of thinking that gave us Cosmos and Pale Blue Dot. I hope enough people retain this author's sense of scientific curiosity and excitement for discovery. While cold logic, expected-value calculations, and cynicism are important in a research setting, outside of the lab it's important for people to be able to get excited about little (or big!) things like this.

We can have scientific progress and childish glee coexist. Thank you for posting this.

In terms of on-paper efficiency, I agree. However, doesn't the wi-fi network solution require shoppers to have wi-fi enabled on their device in order for it to work? Most people I know with smartphones keep wi-fi off unless they need it, and asking shoppers to "pretty please turn on wi-fi while you're shopping" is a questionable proposition.

I currently work in the procurement department of a major defense contractor. This company likes to throw its weight around, but we never (to my knowledge) intend to not pay our vendors - our Terms and Conditions are just exceptionally onerous; but I digress. I would recommend, in any communication with a large customer (such as my company), to be as formulaic and procedural as possible. An example of a letter that would draw our attention and get you the result you want would be:

"Dear [Customer POC],

Your account has a past due balance of $XXXXX.XX. This payment was [agreed/scheduled] to be made by XX/XX/XXXX, in accordance with [our/your] Terms and Conditions. If this balance is not paid before YY/YY/YYYY, we will follow with the appropriate legal action. Please send payment to [address].

Sincerely, [you]"

You want this to look official and direct. Be brief, and don't be afraid to reference legal action even if you don't intend to sue; "appropriate legal action" leaves the next step up to your discretion while still making a material threat to the delinquent customer.

If your customer is a single person, or a very small business, your more emotionally targeted approach will work well. However, with large companies, you need to give them clear-cut rules with consequences outlined if they should break them. Lawsuits are expensive for big companies as well.

To say that this is extremely suspicious is an understatement. I'll be very interested to see what comes of this. If it comes out that someone carried out a hit on a fairly renowned journalist in order to cover up some dirty laundry, there will be hell to pay.

This would be a big step in the right direction. However, heavy-hitting legislation like this that prioritizes civil rights at the expense of government power rarely passes the Senate. We could try and push it through with a SOPA-like activism blitz (which I think we should, honestly), but it would take some serious effort to overcome legislative protectionism.

It's a distinct possibility. The C-suite is finally starting to understand the flaws in shareholder value theory, and going private/independent allows them to focus on long term value without having shareholders clamoring for their resignation due to poor short-term balance sheet results. Giant conglomerates such as GE or P&G will stay public, but I wouldn't be surprised if more focused technology firms - or even companies in other areas of consumer goods - start following this trend. It could be good for industry to have some variety in this way.

True and true, but what good is 'improving the future' if there's nothing to enjoy once we get there? A lot of modern technology revolves around content distribution and consumption. Someone has to make that content in the first place in order for consumer tech to improve our benefit from it. Both sides are important.

I'm not sure. Sounds like I'll have to check it out, though, because I'd love to use a news service like that.

Mint is now owned by Intuit. Are the original founders still with the project? If not, I'd be surprised to see them take such a precient direction.

This is something I've been thinking about recently. If you boil down the 'news problem,' the dominant solutions are traditional news channels (TV networks, newspapers) and sites like Reddit and Digg. I would categorize bloggers as very small-scale traditional news sources, and RSS feeds as a way to combine these traditional and nontraditional sources.

The strength of traditional news is partly cultural, but also due to the nature of its content as being curated and vetted by some (hopefully) informed party prior to publication. Whatever is there, can very generally be expected to be of a higher quality than any random given 'social news' post on the same subject. The drawback, of course, is that the only news available is that which the source determines is 'newsworthy,' which is a very subjective and questionable standard.

Conversely, the strength of 'social news' sources such as Reddit is in their inherent chaos. The crowd decides what floats to the top, with no real vetting process or curation except within the most strictly moderated subcommunities. This ensures that the most socially relevant topics get 'published' to the front page and into the public eye, but those stories have little to no quality control. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept of the "Eternal September," there has been an established trend wherein as the size of a loosely controlled network grows, the quality and content increasingly caters to the lowest common denominator, driving the more invested (and usually the more intellectual) users out, and eroding the value of the network. This has been seen over and over on Reddit, as the mainstream subreddits get overrun with a colossal stream of new users, and any niche interests get sidelined and marginalized.

I would propose a hybrid approach. Why not create a news source - whatever category you decide to label it - that publishes content that is vetted for quality (bias, sensationalism, thoroughness, etc.) but not subject area; in other words, where the articles are all good, and any subject is fair game? Layered on this could be some categorized and 'social' voting algorithm, much like Reddit with subreddits, and users could subscribe to those channels which they cared most strongly for, thereby creating their own high quality news source.

This is just a thought I had today. It's obviously not fully baked yet. What do you think?

Do you recall why he didn't want to use it? As I see it, it's a useful tool, but I couldn't come up with any reason to specifically avoid it. Are there licensing or IP concerns when using it for a budding business?