Now do something something soup something
5,626 karma · joined October 6, 2015
Semiconductor does this all the time…engineers on team A know only about their process critical gate materials step. Engineers on team B know about their lithography step. They are trained not to disclose and people respect that.
The CEO of vocal cola has no business need to know the secret formula. Giving it to him has no upside only downside, so you don’t.
It is akin to ABET (previously Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology) in engineering. having an ABET accredited engineering degree has long been a component (alongside testing and mentored practice) for being a licensed engineer who can stamp drawings (e.g., structural plans for buildings). There are two tests (FE and PE) but they are not created by ABET they are created by an organization called NCEES - The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying.
ABET and NCEES are different organizations, part of the confusion here is that ABA is both the accreditor and the tester in many states. The difference in path between accreditor -> testing -> licensure is:
ABA accredited degree -> ABA (MBE) or other (non-ABA) Bar exam -> Lawyer
ABET accredited degree -> FE exam (made by NCEES) -> mentored work experience -> PE exam (made by NCEES) -> Professional Engineer
(The worlds laziest lit review) https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=school+resource+office+shoots...
Feature / bug
Passive learning (lecture) scored better on:
* Student Enjoyment
* Feeling of Learning
* Instructor effectiveness
* I wish all my courses where taught this way
Active Learning (i.e., not lecture) scored better on:
* Actual learning
The differences are not small.
1) no passengers on board - you can't be accussed of endangering passengers
2) long past - you can't be accused of anything that happened recently
3) the plan literally no longer exists - you can't be accussed of damaging a plane
You can’t understand Google unless you know that both Larry and Sergey were Montessori kids. — Marissa Mayer
Common Cause Failures and false redundancy are just all over the place.
2) even if it did... rentry velocity is like miles per second, that would give you on the order of single digit seconds to recognize something on an intersecting trajectory and take action...
3) even then, I would bet that an object on this trajectory and speed would get filtered out as noise by aircraft radar because it is so antithetical to the types of things an airliner needs to inform pilots of.
Imagine I create a new agreement with a customer once a week. I’m no lawyer so might not notice the impact of small wording changes on the meaning or interpretation of each sequential contract.
Can I try and prompt engineer this out? Yeah sure. Do I as a non lawyer know I have fixed it - not to a high level of confidence.
The answer to you gun analogy is false because it assumes basic knowledge of a gun. This is part of why so many kids shoot themselves or family members with guns - because they don’t know if you pull the trigger something violent will happen until they are taught it.
To me the end game if this is incredibly dark because it is substituting something that can be fought for and won and acquired through malevolent means as a basis for making truth.
The idea that I left with was to look at the hierarchy of principles not just the set of or claimed principles.
At this point it seems as if the top of the principal stack for those in power isn’t even more power anymore, it’s just grift.
I will say as someone who is suspicious of self driving cars...they are not really worse than Atlanta drivers as a typical pedestrian. They are dangerous in different ways...but not necessarily more or less.
It is more statistically realistic for them to want to be a successful influencer than it is for them to be a professional athlete.
So, I'm going to flag this as a perfect example of legibility vs. legitimacy[0]. You, probably AP's writers, and much of the public perceive learning as ocurring in a certain way. That isn't the way that 'the best' learning occurs, its the way that most closely resembles where we think learning occurs. Going further, it is much easier to interpret a lecture hall as a learning activity because it is easy to perceive what is being 'learned'. You sort of say it yourself. you are asking a why question about what is being learned - it is less legibile - and that is leveraged into an inference that less is being learned - i.e., it is less legitimate.
The problem is that the comparison you are making is false - but deeply embedded in our minds. Students *feel* like they learn more in lectures than in 'active learning' classes.However, when their actual knowledge is tested the oppostie is actually true. The students perception and actual learning are at odds and mediated by the environment[1]. It is, again, easy to sit in a lecture and overstate (i.e., feel like) you're learning because you are watching someone who is an expert talk about something. No metacognitive monitoring is required on the student's part. In contrast, it is really easy to perceive yourself as struggling in a class where your learning process and your failures in that process become visible. Students are taught to view failures/wrong answers as bad - so they view their process of learning as evidence of not learning.
Pedantically, no one in the picture you reference is cutting paper with scissors. There are scissors on the table, no one is cutting. You made an inference - inferences are important but difficult to test. They are working in groups to learn with peers (a science based best practice). I don't know exactly but I can infer it is related to math, possible learning to calculate area and estimate. Making that tangible, creating and measuring simple then more complex shapes helps them learn - its not arts and crafts. It leads to better conceptual understanding than an abstract explanation.
It may look different, but my hobby horse problem with US education is that everyone's vibes are treated as equivalent to actual scientific evidence. We regularly crator efforts to fix these problems simply because they don't look like the school that the parents went to. We had one parent try and ban school provided laptops (which are used for 20minutes / week) from my daughter's preK class because her kids are zero screen time. I can't imagine a parent in Japan or China even trying that.
[0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call...
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
As a CODA - measuring learning is shockingly hard. As an analogy, it is not deterministic it is quantum. Data tells us that if I ask demographic questions before a test, certain groups score lower than if I ask them at the end. If I ask a math question using a realistic scenario, students show higher conceptual understanding than if I ask them a fully abstracted question. If a student is hungry or tired that day, they will score lower. None of those are measuring the latent construct (e.g., math ability) that we need to estimate, even if it is a high variability measure.
When dealing with a company whose business is filing dmca complaints using an automated system, the business model isn’t a lawsuit - it’s a settlement where the influencer is made whole and you get paid. The risk to the company is existential if you have enough clients using you to push back and risking them getting a platform ban or an injunction against them filing automated dmca complaints. Say they file a thousand complaints a day against a thousand YouTube channels. If even 50 of those channels file a counter claim it’s going to set off alarm bells.
All that being said the most toxic part of this is the company calling itself a cyber security company and trying to obfuscate seemingly pretty responsible disclosures using dmca.