freeopinion

If one week of work can be reduced to an hour, then you should be able to complete a year's worth of work in 50 hours. If you break that into two 25-hour weeks (because a 40x dev earns the right to loaf?), what is that dev doing for the other 50 weeks in the year? What is making them so incredibly unproductive 50 out of 52 weeks in a year?

Arithmetic, Algebra, and Statistics are different classes should be taught separately.

"Please wake up and take your headphones off and answer my question even though you don't plan on passing any of your classes" and History are different classes with different types of students. Trying to conduct both classes at the same time using the same teacher is folly. You will be forced to abandon one or both of the students. You might argue that you should abandon them it turns every other day so they both get something out of the class. But that means they will each get half or less out of the class than they would have if you separated the classes. It is highly likely that you will frustrate both students to the point of impediment.

If you bought 6 liters of soda for £3/2-liter bottle with 8% consumption tax, how much should it cost?

You have to shape that all into a series of operations for your calculator. The calculator can't do it by itself. Even basic arithmetic takes some education before the calculator can be useful.

I have a great deal of respect for you. Your math skills are much greater than my own. But you have stretched your statement too far. Flash cards can be very helpful in teaching math. Timed tests for math facts can be very helpful. Both of these can be facilitated with computers or tablets. Animations can be a very useful instructional tool. Even taking a picture of the chalk on the blackboard and putting it online can help students (and possibly helpful parents) review the in-class lecture from home while they do their homework.

I don't dismiss your overall point, but don't be too flippant. A video of the lecture can be very helpful.

In the USA there are approximately 50 million students aged 5-18. If you paid for each student to get 1:1 attention one day a week, you would need one teacher per five students in schools that meet five days a week. Let's use that number because it reduces 50 million students nicely to 10 million teachers. Let's pay each teacher $70K/year. That would cost $700 billion per year.

The USA military spent $100 billion per year in Afghanistan.

If the USA provided the 1:1 attention only in 1st Grade and 3rd Grade, they could fund it with the same commitment they made in Afghanistan with a lot fewer deaths. The USA persisted in Afghanistan for 20 years. Shall we experiment with education for 10 years and see if we get a better result than we did in Afghanistan?

It seems obvious to me that the answer should be yes. So the follow ups should be figuring out how to move a student from an unwilling participant to a willing participant.

I think about three strata of students. The stubbornly unwilling, the coaxable, and the eager. It is pretty easy to design education for the eager. And discussing how to optimize that is a completely different discipline than the discussion about how to coax. The discussion about moving the unwilling to the coaxable is another topic on its own.

Having a mixed class of unwilling, coaxable, and eager in a classroom with a mantra of "no child left behind" is a huge mistake in the same way it would be a mistake to have one teacher in a mixed classroom for Geometry, Alphabet, and Orchestra.

Your repo has a link to the standard[0], which might interest some people. It makes me unreasonably happy to know that this was funded out of Singapore.

[0] https://posithub.org/docs/posit_standard-2.pdf

If a human element is required to get value from AI, but any human will do, then devs should get minimum wage. If different humans have a different multiplier when you apply them to AI, they should be compensated accordingly. So if the 1x dev can get 5x out of AI, and the 2x dev can get 2x out of AI, you can fire the 2x2 dev, double the salary of the 1x5 dev, and be more productive for less money[1]. Or you can keep both devs, but pay the 1x5 dev slightly better than the 2x2 dev.

This is all assuming you have some valid way of measuring 1x, 2x, 1x5, and 2x2.

[1] Double salary doesn't have to include double insurance, vacation, etc. But there is also the cost of the AI, so...

Edit: markup

I think it is helpful to have cordial discussions and even friendly debates. I reserve the right to be confused and sometimes outright wrong. I don't mind being corrected. That is one important way that all humans can learn. I don't think ad hominem attacks are helpful in advancing shared understanding.

I suspect that you and I agree on economics a lot more than you express here. I hope that in the future we figure out how to listen to each other and express ourselves in ways that facilitate a better exchange of ideas.

Now, nobody expects the 95-year old cancer patient to chop their fair share of firewood for the winter. So we can levy a tax to pay somebody to chop for them. Or we can just schedule a community chop for next Saturday and try to make sure everybody has enough wood. What do we do with the slackers who don't show up on Saturday?

We figured out a long time ago that cash is a very useful tool to facilitate trade better than bartering can. And we can extend that into community contributions. We don't have to track how many potatoes and apples somebody grew and contributed to the widow fund. We don't have to figure out if 5 carrots and two hours of wood chopping is a fair contribution. We can just convert it all to money and require everyone to chip in the same amount. Except for the cancer patient and the widow, and the guy who hurt himself chopping wood for the cancer patient.

Oh, and the Microsofts and Amazons. They only have to contribute 1/100th of what everybody else chips in.

But those are the rules. We just codified them so that we can stop feeling peeved because we haven't seen Ricardo at the last three community chops. So we started keeping score. And yet, somebody is always still feeling peeved. Perhaps they don't like the rules that let big corps off the hook. Perhaps they think wood chopper boy is faking that foot injury. Maybe they think cancer is a hoax perpetrated by big Pharma. People complained when contributions were an honor system. They complain when contributions are codified into a tax system. Some people dodged when it was an honor system. Some people dodge when it is the law.

I argue that capitalism (lower-case) is as old as humans. Was not the shift away from hunter-gatherer a capitalist choice?

(Thank you for your comment. I know a discussion about capitalism is completely off-topic, and an explanation of reification is even more off-topic. But I've enjoyed you bringing it up and exploring the tangent.)

Sometimes socialism can provide solutions that are in the best <qualifier> self interest for a particular issue. In those cases, a good capitalist will choose socialism when <qualifier> is their priority.

I would expect that a good socialist would utilize the principles of capitalism to execute the most cost-effective socialist solutions.

Before you choose to practice capitalism or something else, you should choose whether to be a good person who contributes to society. Those two things are independent of each other. First choose to be a good person. Then employ whatever gift of intelligence you have to build super efficient systems in pursuit of doing good.

Capitalism is like gravity. Gravity isn't good or bad. It just is. Everybody takes advantage of gravity all the time to do things like walking. Some people build clever systems that explicitly rely on gravity. The current state of gravity is not making the world better or worse than the state of gravity did a million years ago.

People are doing amazing things that seem to defy gravity. But they don't defy gravity. They still rely on principles of physics that include gravity. People who understand gravity can depend on it to make things like Burj Khalifa possible.

Any interaction between people involves economics. Capitalism is just a set of observations about those interactions. Capitalists can be selfish or generous (or both). Capitalism focuses on the effects of acting in self interest. But people have to decide for themselves what is in their best interest. That decision is independent of capitalism. I think it is best not to confuse that decision with capitalism.

That might help better explain why I think capitalism is super awesome when informed by enlightened ideas of self interest. Your gripe doesn't seem to me to be against capitalism. Your argument seems to be that people have mistaken ideas about their own self interest.

If charity won't save us taxes never will.

It can worry over Part C while I have my 10:30 group meet. And it can worry over Part D while I do whatever other silly, time-wasting thing all humans do in almost all organizations. Then I still haven't reviewed Part B, yet, so the extremely slow AI is waiting on me.

Maybe someday I'll be good enough to need faster AI so I can rewrite something like Bun in a few days. Right now, slow and local fits my use case very well.

If you want to change your world, demonstrate empathy in your very small, very local society. I'll try to do better in my small world, too. Maybe some day your little society will extend out to touch my little society. Let's hope that together they would form a bigger bubble where empathy is a strength.

I am a very devout capitalist. I believe very deeply in contributing to society. I don't think I am that unusual in this respect. I see people acting very capitalistic to operate community gardens with the maximum margins. I see highly trained experts volunteer as educators. I see well-paid doctors and lawyers raking up leaves for their neighbors. I see accountants freelancing to keep the blind center afloat.

There is a lot of greed in the world. I don't deny it. I confess it in myself. But there are a lot of people doing a lot of good as well. If you're feeling discouraged about the dimmer side of human nature, start up something bright and wholesome and be amazed at how many people flock to help you. Surround yourself with these people. If you don't feel you have the energy to start your own thing, be one of the people who flock to somebody else's bright efforts.

What kind of world do you want to live in? Spend your effort building that world. (Even if it takes a lot of effort.)

A person may appreciate the utility of this apparent simplicity just fine and still need a different solution for any of a variety of reasons. That doesn't make them weird.

You specifically highlight printing from a phone. Did you notice that the phone doesn't remove the ability to communicate over the cellular radio or the bluetooth radio just because a user might find the wifi radio convenient? It would be weird if it did.

Canvas is used by Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, CalTech, etc. If they each paid 10 FTE, they could set up a foundation that could govern the development of a top-tier LMS. Every tier-1 state institution could contribute 5 FTE. Even little JuCos could chip in an employee here and there. You'd pick up hundreds of capable employees at a fraction of what those schools currently pay to Instructure.

In reality, universities always spin off anything that looks like it could generate revenue. It is very telling that you can't even get your college transcript from your college. You have to go to (and pay) some third party to get it. Some universities even outsource their "classes" like elderhostel to cruise lines and travel companies.

^^ Not EV, but... :)

Kia's engines are known to fail predictably even within first 100K miles. They extended their warranty because of it. But then they weasel out of it unless you hire an attorney and go to war.

I don't want to blame AI for all the world's problems. And I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. But I think you should think really hard about the value of gates. Smart people can build better gates than cash. But right now, cash might be better than nothing. Clearly you have already thought about how to build gates, but I don't think you have spent enough time thinking about who should be gated and why. You should think about gates that have more purpose than just maximizing your profit.

"We want to hook as many people as possible without letting in our competitors" is a pretty crummy thought to use as a public justification.

(Edited for typos.)