avs733

I would be curious to see independent citations of these claims.

sorry, fair and true. My point was more how a company can create a difference between issued and authorized shares.

It’s important to note I didn’t say anything about his integrity.

There’s a pretty significant area of scholarly research in business and entrepreneurship that criticizes “mythicization” of successful individuals.

What those scholars argue, basically, is that media as well as business researchers take the words of successful people as inherently true and important. The result in, say research on entrepreneurs, is that what successful entrepreneurs think is meaningful is reported as de facto true and important. The critique is not of them saying it - it’s of others accepting it as valid based on the heuristic that successful people must be right. It’s a critique of the resulting research for not being objectively defensible, but instead just reinforcing societal norms as reality.

In my comment, my criticism isn’t of musk it’s of others. Believe me, musk, you, me, everyone tells stories about our selves and our beliefs from our own perspectives. It’s how other evaluate and use those stories as objective rather than subjective that can be problematic.

C.f,, the other comment replies I got

See also: stock buybacks

It’s a completely ridiculous narrative to think that musk is interested in anyones free speech but his own. We should all be more aware of when the narratives billionaires pitch about themselves become perceived to be objective reality.

By the “I personally don’t like your policies” metric.

Of course it does, but we also have no idea what happened behind the scenes and the board does. He turned down joining the board last week basically because he could act like a troll if he did (I’m being facetious). Calling musk the richest man in the world is also kind of silly because he’s not offering to stock swap for Tesla shares…he has a lot of theoretical wealth, which as with many factors would play in the boards decision about whether this is serious.

My point is that the number on the offer is not an objective and singular measure of whether this is a good deal for Twitter. Who is making the offer clearly matters as well to how serious it is.

It would be simple for them to say 'this is not a serious offer' no matter the premium that is a good faith way of rejecting it.

I could offer them $150 a share tomorrow, contingent on financing and would get laughed out of the room.

The boards mandate is one of fiduciary duty. Bluntly, that is not a mandate to maximize shareholder value, especially in the short term.

They do not have an offer that will maximize shareholder value - they have an offer that will increase it.

Words have meaning and concepts have definitions. They are not arbitrary of flexible for the sake of making the argument you want.

The BOD's responsibility is to the company, a public company's responsibility is to the shareholders - this difference matters.

Cornell's legal information institute provides a nice and cited set of definitions (albeit in legalese) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty

that was my take too. As with any company, if they can stop sharing revenue with third parties it seems almost inevitable that they will. It isn't just Amazon basics, its Netflix producing its own shows that are a product of machine learning about people's preferences.

Whether that is good or bad is a different question

Whether they are being honest about it is a different question

Whether they should inform people / people should inform themselves is a different question

But I see the perverse incentives as a problem, and the the misleading behavior as another the problem...the incentive is universal in any platform that has to pay for the content it hosts, and while folks may be okay with this one, whats the limit? If they really stood behind this they would be transparent 'here I'm playing you music created by spotify to fill your home with generic low-engagement sound. The fact that they are obfuscating it is telling.

How is that pay calculated?

It’s very strange that people want to conflate genitalia and you know…like pronouns?

There’s actually lots of good reasons, including proper hygiene, helping children understand consent, privacy, boundaries. But you’ve made a choice in how to frame the conversation that is designed to eliminate any need to learn…I can’t help you there but demands of ignorance shouldn’t be how we legislate.

You are obviously and logically correct. The obviousness is exactly the point of the law because it creates vagueness. It’s just another right wing attack on public schools.

And the reaction is telling… the vagueness and the double meaning is the point not an accidental side effect

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

It sounds like FAANG has reinvented tenure and promotion processes from academia…and the resulting inherent pressures.

A moment to reflect on Han’s critique of publish or perish academia?

>I wouldn't say that coders as an industry are destroying the road behind us

What worries me more than it happening is how many seem to either be blind or proud that they are.

> (and this I find to be much more likely) the school was dumb

It makes me cringe that this is an accurate assessment of how our educational system is run.

That’s mentioned in the next couple bullets but it largely comes down to

Signals processing

Noise

Friend?

two notes:

1) I would argue that most questions we are asking students in technical courses shouldn't have right and wrong answers...it communicates the wrong thing and reinforces the assumption that technical work is 'getting the right answer' for students. College level technical teaching should work beyond that norm towards using 'right answers' for decision making

2) While there are similarities and they are often used interchangably, standards based, mastery based, and specifications grading are not exactly the same thing.

because there is no incentivization not to.

background: I have tried ungrading in engineering courses, it freaks students out and tends to trigger process inappropriate optimization behaviors as opposed to learning orientation shifts...I've had better luck with a middle ground. overall statement of positionality - grades and summative assessment are necessary and important but are unrelated to creating learning, formative feedback is much more affective at creating learning.

exactly. Students are people with lived experiences and expectations that drive how they perceive things. A lot of times things that are 'theoretically' better in education bomb in practice because they conflict with students' emotional/psychological needs, wants, and expectations. There are NORMS and all this does is mess with the norms the faculty can control - but not all the norms. The most important thing he is doing is cleaving formative from summative feedback.

This isn't really a perfect with the underlying principles of ungrading...this isjust ungrading within the controlled climate of the course itself. Thats great, but the problem is his drive towards formative feedback over summative feedback is constrained by outside forces. There is still a grade at the end of the course and that makes it hard. And then add in that if too many students do well you get accused of 'grade inflation' (which is a whole nother ball of nonsense). Students KNOW there will be a grade at the end, to act as if there isn't is just introducing ambiguity not necessarily learning. You can bypass some of the problems with strong trust - but only some. Specific to the comment on rubrics, GOOD rubrics can't really be useful, self and peer evaluation can be useful, using the rubric to provide formative feedback can be useful. Revisions can be ESPECIALLY useful. But you can't truly (ugh...sorry, no true scotsman) within a typical university that demands I assign grades. Anything you do to try will be 'gamed' so the best you can do is make 'gaming the system' and 'learning' as similar as possible.

I would love LOVE to just have all of the classes I teach be taken as pass/fail but they aren't and can't be based on the external systematic rules. I've settled on a tool called 'specifications grading' as a middle ground that basically translates learning behaviors and outcomes into a clear grading system.

i don't think its a good or a bad thing, I think its a human thing and thats worth recognizing first.

It’s worth noting that engineering is now close to if not the most common undergrad degree for mba graduates

Which is what the people seemed to have been incentivized to do

Because beliefs tend to emerge from ideology as opposed to the other way around. Then those beliefs become the api for interacting with information

It’s a multibillion dollar nonprofit who’s ceo makes over a million a year.

Do with that what you will.

this is a perfect example of why governmental services are so important - even if they are often run poorly. Without them, dis-equities inherently perpetuate due to external incentives.

The SAT is treated as a standardized test but it, as you note, is inaccessible to many. It is not government run or organized. I've found, from teaching undergraduates, that most of the students who go to college presume that everyone takes the SATs, that it is government administered, and that it is free.

compare this to the, still far from perfect and problematic in other ways, centralized university admissions testing system in many other countries.

yes, immensely

many people still pay bills by mail. they may not have access to the internet or know how to pay bills online (i.e., the poor and elderly). They still exist and this makes their lives harder and more complex and more uncertain.