This is the problem with Facebook. Facebook is not the platform; the people are the platform. All the problems Facebook solves for her are problems that the Internet solves, not specifically Facebook, but Facebook just makes it so easy: everyone is already there.
The author says, "Until another platform comes along, I’ll stick with it." But there are certainly already other platforms. I think what she means is, "Until another platform becomes popular among my social circle."
In theory we’ve had Contacts apps and E-mail lists for decades that people could have used for essentially all of their interactions. And it’s never been easier to use either of those from any device.
Then I think about how poorly integrated those basic things really are. Why can’t my iPhone Contacts app let me create basic groups like “Friends” and “Family” for instance? Why is there no dead-simple event site that uses good-old-mailing lists as the core mechanism for deciding who is going, and communicating?
Sometimes it feels like we came so close with the basics and then just stopped improving them. I think defeating Facebook starts by addressing those core features.
> In computing, a hyperlink, or simply a link, is a reference to data that the reader can directly follow either by clicking, tapping, or hovering. A hyperlink points to a whole document or to a specific element within a document. Hypertext is text with hyperlinks. The text that is linked from is called anchor text. A software system that is used for viewing and creating hypertext is a hypertext system, and to create a hyperlink is to hyperlink (or simply to link). A user following hyperlinks is said to navigate or browse the hypertext.
The URL in the abstract is not a "link." A link is an element in hypertext.
a "link" is something that connects two entities together in some arbitrary way. a chain link for instance connects the constituent entities of a chain (other links) together. a link in a linked list connects different nodes together. and a hypertext link connects two hypertext resources together. what you're doing is picking one specific definition and applying it liberally to all potential interpretations and contexts of said word. this is why i tend to espouse the virtues of generality over specificity; when you get too specific, you start eliminating the actual utility and flexibility of language. a link in terms of computing is most certainly NOT just a hypertext link, that is only one very specific interpretation of the concept at hand that you're falling back on to try and further your argument. liberally ignoring all the other possible interpretations is quite intellectually dishonest imo. still, you're entitled to perceive things how you want and argue it whatever way you desire. just know that the majority of reasonable and educated individuals will disagree with you. you're up shit creek and you keep denying every paddle that's offered to ya m8
If it helps, the Oxford English dictionary has updated the definition of “literally” to literally include “used for emphasis while not being literally true.”
Whether we like it or not, language evolves. If “literally” can, then literally any other word can too.
I found it annoying to be forced into a pedantic onboarding tutorial. I decided not to finish it.
Can't you wait until I try to do things, like view recipes or build grocery lists, before forcing me into them? I just want to check out the app my own way. The tips could appear when contextually appropriate, and be dismissible.
Great list! But I was perplexed by the text editors mentioned. Author claims to be looking at trend data, but seems to have a bias against Subljme Text editor. I don't know if there is some connection to Atom or VSCode, but it seems easily verifiable that Sublime and vim are vastly more popular than other editors mentioned, yet Sublime is inexplicably absent and vim is mentioned last and sort of offhand as more of just a tool you have to know for ssh sessions.
Sublime is absent because a lot of previous sublime users are now Atom users, and it is now the more popular editor by a large margin. Those comfortable with Sublime will find Atom very inviting.
I've already responded to your previous comments; so I hope it doesn't feel like I'm trying to target you, because you're not the only one who feels the way you do and I can understand where your perspective comes from, but I honestly don't see how you can describe other people's children as "undisciplined brats" and "savages" and then turn around say, "I'm not passing judgement on those children at all".
I don't feel singled out. I guess I'm being cynical and hyperbolic. To clarify, without guidance, my own children are often savages and undisciplined brats as well. I'm sorry if you don't like my strong language. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't see children learning good behavior from one another very often, as they get older and learn more things, I assume that changes. I believe that parents need to be very active in their child's development to ensure that they're learning what they need to. I've seen and met other parents who take the attitude that just sending their kids to school and abdicating their responsibility for their child's development is ok and that their kid will somehow magically learn how to function in society. I admit that it's anecdotal, but I find that people my age who grew up under this lazy parenting model seem to be pretty incapable at life in general.
Regardless, I enjoy the conversation. I feel like using the word "savage", while it makes sense to me, may have distracted from the point I was trying to make. I have a pretty cynical view of human nature in general.
I don't think they were passing any specific judgement on your snowflakes, but rather just saying it's all relative.
If you look at the tone and language of your comments, there is quite a bit of detectable judgement and condescension. I'm sure your kids have great parent(s) who are involved, but I'm not sure you recognize the privilege your family enjoys. I think this point-of-view is troubling when looking at how we might approach the real problems facing society re: children, education, etc.
But wouldn't trying to solve some of these problems make more sense than a turn toward homeschooling? Maybe get more mature, self-actualized people involved in the lives of all children, not just the privileged ones?
I don't see how promoting homeschooling as the alternative to schools is a good solution here.
Also, a turn toward homeschooling can be a total wildcard based on the values and intent of the individual parents. The movie Dogtooth[1] is somewhat relevant here.
You're treading a dangerous path when you call out the values and intents of individual parents as factors in deciding when homeschooling is or is not beneficial. Of course that is true, but whom do you propose to empower to decide what values and intents are acceptable?
Well, that's sort of my point. I don't think there is a good solution to empower some entity to decide what values and intents are acceptable.
But I don't think the values and intents of parents keeping their kids at home for schooling are always acceptable, which is emphasized in an exaggerated way in the Dogtooth film.
I'm sure in some cases homeschooling could be beneficial and "better" for an individual child than the existing school system. I just think mistaking homeschooling as an "alternative" to trying to solve problems of the school system is its own dangerous path.
I was homeschooled by a typical unqualified mom who "brainwashed" us with the crazy anti-evolution stuff everyone is so terrified of. That one tiny topic doesn't invalidate your entire education. Most people couldn't tell you the first thing about evolution anyway.
She always worried that her inability to teach was ruining us. My dad said her teaching was not that important; her main job was just to be someone with a pulse who cared about us to the exclusion of all else. And it worked, I entered honors engineering at age 16.
Someone has to decide what the kid learns. It might as well be someone who has a better chance of actually caring about them.
> Someone has to decide what the kid learns. It might as well be someone who has a better chance of actually caring about them.
This is a salient point. But I don't think the answer is "parents homeschooling" which can only ever address privileged individuals.
Might there be some way we can get more people involved in the the lives of all children that fit the description of "someone who has a better chance of actually caring about them"? That's the problem I believe homeschool ignores.
>I don't think the answer is "parents homeschooling" which can only ever address privileged individuals.
My father became disabled when I was 8 or 9 and could no longer work. There were years when our christmas tree was a potted plant and our presents were cereal boxtop prizes. Yet I was able to be educated at home.
If you are interested in allowing more people to have the privilege of home schooling, then perhaps we should examine the inequity of home schooling parents being taxed for public educations there children are not using?
Why is it morally acceptable for the state to, by default raise children? "Sometimes people do it wrong when left to themselves" is not a sufficient affirmative moral argument.
From a historical perspective, the idea that the state should be primarily responsible for the rearing and education of children is a new, and radical idea. For the vast majority of human history, children were equipped with the skills for life by their parents.
I point this out because the premise of your argument assumes that state run public education is the default solution, and that home, or 'alternative' schooling is in the position of needing to prove why it is superior, when in fact, the situation is exactly reversed. It is public education which needs to prove empirically, why it is intrinsically better than the traditional forms of education.
Not just their parents, but their extended family, tribe, and/or village as well. Often segregated by gender for certain aspects as well. In many cultures they even had sublanguages that were gender and age specific.
And what was required to be functional in historic societies (say prior to the last 50-200 years[EDIT: 0]) was no literacy, no history, no mathematics, no basic economics, no civics (in the sense of understanding the theory, not the practice).
For the vast majority of human history we lived much, much simpler lives in many ways. Now, you need basic literacy and numeracy to be able to contribute to any non-manual-labor jobs. And even then, you need numeracy to manage your own finances or risk being taken advantage of.
What's required of the modern adult in the West is not a level of education that can be provided solely by two parents to more than two to three children (and that'd be pushing it). Instead, they rely on external resources (texts, videos, tutors, like minded parents) along with their own capabilities of education and instruction.
[EDIT: 0] Because the future isn't distributed evenly. But I should've specified further back than I did.
The argument that current life has some fundamentally different qualities which require wholly new approach to education is, I think, overly reductionist but let's assume I concede that point for a moment:
Even in a situation where the world requires a new solution to education, the burden of proof in terms of a particular solution's efficacy lies not with the old approach but the new.
That is to say, public education needs to demonstrate how it is objectively better suited than historic methods of education.
I'd say the significantly improved literacy rates throughout the world are certainly helping the case for current education schemes (public and private, public merely gives access to more people than costly private education).
We had poor literacy, we introduced public education, literacy improved.
One major advantage of public education is breaking a particular cycle that would occur without it for many people. If you're uneducated or undereducated you are not in a position to educate your own children. You need a school or a tutor to help. Without that, your children are likely going to end up similarly undereducated.
Public schools are a democratizing factor that can significantly reduce inequality in education, and consequently inequality in life outcomes (as measured by financial and other success).
Because back then, it entirely depended on who your family was to determine the level of education someone got. If you were born into a rich family, congratulations. If you were born into a poor family, you're lucky if you get taught how to read and write.
You can argue all you want about current school systems, but I think we can all agree that it's far, far, far better that everyone receive a baseline level of education, regardless of family background, than the way things were before.
I think your viewpoint here is perhaps the most logical. Public education should be a safety net to ensure that everyone has access to at least a basic level of education in much the same way that medicare ostensibly ensures that no one falls below a basic level of access to health care.
This view of education, however, is not reflected either socially or in legislative reality when it comes to America education in general.
You're right that given the long view of history wide spread adoption of formal, especially public, education is a relatively new phenomena, but this is completely irrelevant.
The reason why public education became wide spread starting in the middle of the 19th century was the industrial revolution and the need for a more educated work force. Prior to that, an economy primarily devoted to subsistence farming, can can get by with an uneducated work force as it had for thousands of years. Suddenly with mechanization, you actually needed people that could do math.
Today, in the first part of the 21st century, with automation, and wealth inequality, the efficacy of education as the great leveler is clear by pretty much every economic study. In light of this, it doesn't make sense to go back to a hodgepodge curricula at best.
Second, and perhaps most important, in the 19th century and before you had women whose jobs were to stay home and raise children to the ripe age of 12, at which point if they were a boy, they'd start working with their father in the fields until the they reached 17 at which point they'd marry the 15 year old girl from down the road and start a new farm.
Today, 60% of the households in the United States are dual income, and it's been about this high since the 1990s.[0] the reason for that are many, including the growth of secondary education among women who don't want to stay home all day, to the harsh reality that it's hard for most people to make do with a single income.
Let's not pussy foot around this. One of the modern roles of public education is child care, albeit crappy child care because it starts at 8am and ends at 3pm, thus leaving late afternoons a problem for dual income families.
So let's be honest here. If you abolished public education for homeschooling, you're cutting household income in half, and getting a lower quality educational product, because most people can't adequately educate their children both from a curricula and by a methodological viewpoint.
And while you haven't brought it up, going to a completely private educational system won't work either because quite frankly, most people can't afford to pay the equivalent of buying a car every year per child. Again, we tried this as society in the 18th and 19th centuries. It didn't work.
We don't need to repeal the 20th Century. We already had the 18th and the 19th. They sucked.
You could rewrite that as, before public schooling, we had competent adults who could start families and businesses of their own at ages 13, 15, 17, etc. And we've replaced that with a system designed to babysit "children" up to age 26 or so. I'd say repealing the 20th century would be a good start.
Sure, but would you agree that state run public education is the current default solution, in countries like Australia, the U.S., etc.?
Your point is accurate re: historical perspective, but don't you think you have to take that in context? From a historical perspective, children have been brutally exploited, especially from the poor and middle-class.
The fact that I'm here in 2016 having to defend the 1870s is mind blowing to me. And yet, through out contemporary American politics, it's basically a widespread effort to repeal the 20th Century.
> The fact that I'm here in 2016 having to defend the 1870s is mind blowing to me. And yet, through out contemporary American politics, it's basically a widespread effort to repeal the 20th Century.
It does get quite amazing, doesn't it. And, thank you. :-S
What I am suggesting is that the true context is historical. Public education is relatively new compared to the amount of time humans have required an education. Mathematics, metallurgy, animal husbandry, architecture, construction, trade, language and economics have all required some form of education for thousands of years.
Rational arguments require comparisons, and if we narrow the scope of comparison to the repetitively new era and scope (american public education) then we ignore the preponderance of evidence from human history.
But the entire problem is that millions of children are being forced into a regiment of school based on the Prussian system (which also pioneered goose stepping), then segregated by age rather than ability and indoctrinated in whatever it is that politicians of the day compromise on. Students waste thousands of hours learning far less than they could, they endure harsh psychological trauma in dysfunctional settings and then enter the job market with cookie-cutter skillsets.
I don't see how promoting organizational improvements as an alternative to educational freedoms is a good solution here.
In the industrial era when the system started, there was a somewhat defensible position that a conformist generation of young people indoctrinated with the same beliefs and an inclination to defer to authority was exactly what the factories needed. That era has passed. Education is priceless, but schooling and its associated credentialism is arguably the worst market distortion of the past century.
All this. I think community-based (public) education is the way to go, and I don't like having to homeschool. But currently, even good public schools (and non-alternative private schools) are prisons. We need somehow to scale up (or rather, out) alternative schools and publicly fund them.
The author says, "Until another platform comes along, I’ll stick with it." But there are certainly already other platforms. I think what she means is, "Until another platform becomes popular among my social circle."