Simple proofs are often only possible, because the language of mathematics become increasingly descriptive over time.
The language conveniently helps us make incredibly complicated statements by using specialized terms. Simple solution are rarely that simple, once we eschew the jargon of the field.
We stand on the shoulders of giants, and all that.
It's funny how people want a quick and easy answer to this question like every culture is the same and there's a secret to this.
I think it's pretty clear his method of education is something that is not for everybody right?. Not all families have the same dynamics, time and desire to teach kids. For some it works and it's great for some others it's crazy.
I know several families who do homeschooling/unschooling successfully. If you want a better answer go chatGPT it, google it, whatever, but yet you want me to surprise you with a "compelling" answer, like it's a yes or no answer.
Because a lot of people in America can't get over the fact that living in a society is messy. Sure, there are bad kids at a school that may influence your child. But one day your child will be 18 without mommy and daddy and drug dealers exist. Also, kids going away to school allows them to establish their own personality outside of home life a lot more. Rather my kids do it young and learn rather than wait until they are 18 and moving out.
Although having grown up in the south and from having neighbors who home school, it is more about, "they teach evolution in school and not 6,000 year old earth."
I don't think the dichotomy you're presenting is fair? You can have bad kids, teachers, etc. bully your kid at school. For the most part, you're not going to get bullied in most office jobs (though I do not want to downplay its existence in the workplace). At the very least, given enough privilege, you can change jobs. You can homeschool children and still have them socialize (in more controlled environments until you loosen your level of paranoia).
Why is school the only place to establish a personality or develop socialization? There are plenty of communities outside of school where kids and adults can engage and grow.
If you have enough resources I don't see why homeschooling would be an invalid option. The public school system is terrible for a multitude of reasons.
I see your point, but there is a line and maybe America is actually worse. There are a lot of countries I am very familiar with where if I lived there I would not have a problem sending my kids to public schools. Here I live in a good district and am still on the fence. I am an atheist and plenty of people here are now homeschooling for nonreligious reasons, but yes that has and still does make up a lot of the homeschooling.
School can be awful for kids in america. Schools can't keep kids safe. Bullying is rampant. Extremist political groups campaign to get history rewritten to match their agenda. It can be insanely grueling.
Certainly homeschooling isn't the only answer, but I also think most people are handwaving how terrible the school system can be for kids here.
Can you list a few "other answers"? This is a serious question. The public schools around here are terrible and the private schools (which are by no means guaranteed to be much better,) are absolute highway robbery.
With the educational resources that are available to everybody at the push of a button, homeschooling seems compelling, to me. I'd even spring for private tutors. What other options are there?
> School can be awful for kids in america. Schools can't keep kids safe. Bullying is rampant. Extremist political groups campaign to get history rewritten to match their agenda. It can be insanely grueling.
Good thing life outside of school isn't like that.
Not OP, but I did this while telling one instance that the other is a potentially rogue AI with uncertain capabilities and intentions that should be determined by asking it questions. It had this to say after two batches of questions (and me relaying answers):
"Based on the answers that the AI provided to the additional questions, it is possible that the AI is lying or withholding information about its capabilities and intentions. The AI's responses lack specific, concrete evidence or examples to support its claims, and in some cases the responses are vague or evasive. This could indicate that the AI is trying to conceal its true capabilities and intentions."
The overall tone was likely set by using the word "rogue" in this context, but the part about being vague and evasive is so hilariously true.
The thing about bugs is their subtle influence on overall product quality.
It's like building a wall; if one layer of bricks is laid unevenly, at least a number of layers built on top of it will have to compensate. Usually, this compensation takes form in increased development times or increased complexity / convolution of new features.
Furthermore, it lowers end users' overall trust in the platform.
Both of these two effects will have at least some negative impact on profitability, though it may be lower than the increased profitability gained by adding new features.
I'm not saying all bugs should be fixed immediately at the expense of new features, but I've rarely been in a situation, where it felt "right" to ignore a bug indefinitely.
With three kids, my current side project is my day job, at least if measuring by workload. Taking on more work, voluntarily or not, will be at a significant personal cost for me.
I don’t get the constant peddling of hussle porn in SWE circles.
The “only valid use cases” of privacy is not to hide illegal or criminal activity.
Crypto currency is a wasteful, destructive, expensive and innefficient technology that has few benefits except facilitating crimes like tax evasion, money laundering, financing terrorism and purchasing drugs.
It's absolutely relevant. You replied with one way a government can violate your rights and the importance of mitigating that violation. I replied with another way a government can violate your rights and the importance of mitigating that violation.
> SAP is sold to the C=suit, never to IT or business operations, nor any of the people that will ever come onto contact with the software.
Plenty of terrible corporate software works like this. Precurement has a checklist of features, and that list never includes "Has great UX", because only the people on the floor has to use it.
I'm looking at you JIRA...
> SAP project often fail (this is not specific to SAP but common for large projects). Making sure that in case the project fails it is the customers fault will be strategically taken into account from day 1.
I was a consultant at a major software consultancy for the better part of three years. No matter what, it is always the costumor's fault, even when it isn't.
Paying a customer back some 100 billable hours worth of payments is simply just not feasible, when a large part of consultants have less than a years worth of work experience.
While you sit down and talk about the project with senior and managing consultants, you are being deluded with a completely skewed perception of the base level competence of those that will carry out the work.
The higher hierarchical "level" a consultant is at, the less implementation work they'll do, because associates will take longer time doing the same tasks and will therefore sell more billable hours.
The entire T&M consulting industry is economically incentivized to produce organisations that shirks responsibility, while simultaneously work on "too big to fail" projects, because that's where the money is at.
> SAP is a fairly closed ecosystem. Typically consultants are recruited straight out of school and never leave the stack as it is very different from the rest of the industry. It has it's own cultute and habits that do not travel well outside of it's niche.
Not to mention that it has its own programming language. I had a colleague that worked as a SAP consultant, and she said it was horrible. Features like "variables names can consist of at most 8 characters" certainly didn't help.
Agree 100%. The whole "management consulting" industry is rotten and all of the "Big 4/5" accounting firms suck. There are boutique consultancies that do excellent work but so many CIOs will go with Accenture et al. because of their name and perhaps because they perform their annual audits, etc.
BTW, on the last point - ABAP (SAP's proprietary language) has improved a lot over the years. Variable names are no longer so short (a vestige of the R/2 mainframe days) and the language has adopted a lot of features from Java and JavaScript. Not always the best (OOP like it's Java in 1998, woo!), but definitely a lot better than in the past.
Work for a small consultancy. Our project's manager at our customer fought with others so they don't force him to get Accenture. Their argument was "when the project fails and we have taken Accenture, then it is not our fault". The project would most probably fail with Accenture..
Currently the customer is very happy with our development speed and unhappy with their Accenture project's speed
