The problem with Spreading in LD & Policy debate is it's actually trivial to counter; but since it's still primarily focused as the approach, people's usual response is to do it themselves. LD & Policy both 'require' a virtue and criterion being evaluated, and spreading has the unintentional effect of spreading an argument too thin and ignoring that base virtue/criterion, leaving it weak and unsupported.
The easiest way to not get burried in shit isn't to dig yourself out or fling it back, but to side step it...
But tactics like this are actually at the core as to why I don't believe the author of the article is actually talking about debate (instead about discussions, dialectics, etc); since debate - at least how we establish it in both school and what we'll generously describe as 'debates' at the legislative level - is solely about 'winning' the argument, even if there's no win to be had.
It's essentially speedpass built into the car, nothing exciting.
Just like the Amazon BNPL scheme is just Layaway or a store credit card gussied up in Tech speak.
The whole article is just asking a bunch of fintech venture capitalists where they want the market to go; and throwing in a quick blurb from a JP Morgan/Chase exec to make it feel well rounded. Most banks and credit unions aren't JP Morgan, BoA, and Wells Fargo.
It’s a bit sad that everyone is so hung onto full-auto driving and car subscription models, that no one is trying to make current things more practical.
I’m not even talking about gas cars, is there an EV car that can park itself at charger and charge without human being involved?
I'm being a bit 'tongue in cheek' with this... you mean like... ABET or NCEES, which handles the FE, EIT, and PE 'tests'?
Also, ABET already accredits Software Engineering and IT programs; and NCEES has had a Software Engineering PE in the works for the last couple years (I haven't checked recently, but iirc it was slated for release in 2022(?)).
Toy problems seem to exist in pretty much any technical discipline, but it seems most acute in the software world; and I've come to suspect that it's accessibility to making those. Code is quick and human-centric technical item, where as something like a bridge rectifier, amps, fets, and PID controllers aren't necessarily items you can just 'pull out' in an interview; you can see if someone's comfortable with CAD programs, you can see if someone has the chops to understand when a BJT is more appropriate than a MOSFET; but you can't really do that quickly as a 'whiteboarding session' so other technical fields are required to be more selective since you can't just slap out a FET configuration for a D Class amp without spec sheets, requirement gathering, probably CAD design, and other design steps; but you can sure-as-shit slap out a MVP of a SPA customer portal without any of that.
Divorcing "coding" as the act of writing code, and "coding" as the mental process of building a well designed app/system would bring the software world into better alignment with a lot of the rest of the engineering world; and would make something like a SWE PE more viable in the first place. I also don't know if you've ever sat a PE, but they're also __OPEN_BOOK__, since we know that it's a lot of knowledge to have in your head, and it's a better test if you know where to look something up and how to use the right tools (kinda like a 'take-home' exam in software interviews, but not nearly as exploitable and scummy); bring your reference material, but so much ground is covered that if you don't know your stuff, you're failing the PE no matter how many reference books you bring along.
I had used Obsidian - when it was all local file - for a while and switched to Roam because I could use it across my devices; going to try out Obsidian again because of the Syncing that's now available (and I was too lazy to get it set up with some stupid/janky rsync attempt on a box/drive folder).
Definitely liked Obsidian's ecosystem a lot more than Roam's so I'm excited to give it another shot now that my one missing - but needed - feature is now available.
Higher Ed Number cruncher here (who also read the report, which apparently was a big deal to the author since they cited the page count - and many of their arguments hinge on you taking their word for it and not reading at least the exec summary yourself - which is only 8 pages):
So, fun thing about the actual study that the author references... the committee actually __DIDN'T__ tell UC regents to not get rid of the test; they recommended against making it test optional due to variability in assessment requirements between institutions - and the exec summary doesn't include any recommendation for or against fully excising standardized testing from their eval process.
Further, the committee found that while the tests over HSGPA (high test score, low GPA) weighting was used in a subset of cases it was more likely that a student was admitted with just the opposite (low test score, high GPA); and overall it looks like the strongest recommendation was to disincentivize the HSGPA due to it losing almost 25% predictive effectiveness over the tested time period.
This article reads fine until it gets to the last couple of paragraphs, covering "affirmative action" and over-representation of AAPI students; and this is where a glaring issue comes through with their analysis. Like any higher ed institution there is a monetary incentive to get international students; as there isn't usually an out for lower tuition like WUE/WGE (which coincidentally the UC system no longer participates in), interstate compact agreements, and the like for tuition reduction; and the home country in many cases subsidizes the student so the higher ed institution gets full out-of-state tuition rates on a nearly guaranteed basis. So, by using AAPI students as a proxy argument for their weird screed at the end while leaving off factors like what percentage of that UG population is in-state v. out-of-state v. international does a disservice to that over/under-represented claim; while also leaving them off of the earlier analysis pieces moves the slant of the article in a weird way.
For further reference; AAPI students are __NOT__ included in Underrepresented Minority (URM) calculations - even though in many cases a layperson __WOULD__ include them; so by not mentioning them until you reach the point you're calling out the discrepancy they end up begging the question around the "model minority" bs; when it really may be explained more concretely through international and out of state student draw.
> So, by using AAPI students as a proxy argument for their weird screed at the end while leaving off factors like what percentage of that UG population is in-state v. out-of-state v. international does a disservice to that over/under-represented claim; while also leaving them off of the earlier analysis pieces moves the slant of the article in a weird way.
> For further reference; AAPI students are __NOT__ included in Underrepresented Minority (URM) calculations - even though in many cases a layperson __WOULD__ include them;
> UC reports international students separately. [sic]
The report cited in the article isn't as clear on their distinction and in some cases the numbers indicate that the comparisons are among feeder, in-state high schools; and others are general enough that the lack of detail is concerning as the study leaves out the total population and only provides percentages.
> Not in higher ed.
While the common/colloquial understanding through recent years shows that Asian students are more represented in higher ed; the general notion of what URM is codified as in higher ed contexts is less known; and wasn't clearly defined in the article. And I initially spoke too broadly, as the PI (pacific islander) portion of AAPI is included in URM, the Asian portion is not; and the PI portion is not mention anywhere in the article; and with AAPI discrimination being in the current cultural Zeitgeist, if that distinction goes unmentioned it's a leading statement.
> The report cited in the article isn't as clear on their distinction and in some cases the numbers indicate that the comparisons are among feeder, in-state high schools; and others are general enough that the lack of detail is concerning as the study leaves out the total population and only provides percentages.
You can look at the data[1] yourself. It's clear that of in-state students enrolling in UCs (not international), Asian Americans make up 36% of enrollees and white Americans make up 20% of enrollees (indeed "underrepresented"). It seems like you are leading on with your comments that it is maybe OK to cut down on Asian representation because most of those students are probably international anyway (which I also don't agree with), but the data clearly shows that such a cut to Asian representation would harm Asian Americans as well.
You're literally __NOT__ citing the study used and provided to the regents and which forms the basis for the article.
Again, as I noted to the GP, the study is not clear in all cases what n they are using when calculating their percentages, and the author of the article takes advantage of that.
Further, you're reading a lot into my comments; I am neither advocating for or against changes to given policy, but that the study leaves inconsistencies that the author readily takes advantage of for their own agenda.
Ah. So when the article says that by percentage, white students are underrepresented, that’s because the denominator for the student body population includes all students (thus also international and out of state students), rather than just in-state California students?
This is not true, you can see the data[1] yourself for in-state students. It is true that of in-state students at UCs, white students are "underrepresented" compared to their share of the population, but their share of admissions is actually very close to their share of applications so there could be other reasons for this. For example, white students in CA may be:
* more likely to apply to private schools
* more able to afford private schools
* more likely to get accepted to private schools that don't have the same race-blind admissions restrictions that UCs do
There is a chance; but more than likely they're quietly mixing what they count in the denominator; especially since with the rest of the URM group and whites it seems they are very careful to call out that its comparisons between the high school pipeline and the in-state collegiate pipeline, but aren't as careful when discussing the AAPI pipeline.
Also, it looks like the study is following federal guidelines (IPEDS/NCES) on student groups; so Asian in this context for international students includes everyone from Korea, China, and Japan, down to the Malaysian Peninsula, through India, all the way west to the Arabian Peninsula (you know, like about 50% of the world population, no biggie there); so there may be some weird mixing of what's included in the denominator for AAPI students.
I'm going to push back on the "less intrusive" than cigarette smoke; yes, vaping smoke doesn't stick to your clothes or on your breath, but that precludes the weird habit of vapers using the product where ever they darn well please because it isn't "smoking." The amount of times I've ran into a cloud of "banana margherita" is a bit ridiculous, and honestly I'd rather sit in a smoking section of a restaurant in podunk Wyoming than be randomly accosted by vape smoke, because at least with the smoker section I am willingly choosing to be there.
Also, as a smoker, I've never "hit it off" with somebody because we smoked. Hitting it off with someone in the smoker's pit outside a bar is just shooting the shit with someone that's in a common area; folks that vape and vegans are very similar in that it's a major point of conversation, as if they've assimilated it as part of their personality.
All that being said, vaping is fine, but the uptick in high schoolers smoking (because it's still smoking under a different name) is a bit alarming; and will be interesting to see how that consumer pipeline changes as regulation of them changes.
Do you have any actual data for that? Last I saw, most bands are still using live drummers and studio recordings for small to mid-sized bands are still actual drummers as well - unless it's a mostly studio band trying to save cost.
I think the analog to programming is a bit more direct in this sense; most companies aren't going to go with something like Copilot unless it's supplemental or they're on an entirely shoestring budget; it'll be the bigger companies wanting to squeeze out that extra 10% productivity that are betting hard on this - same with where larger bands would do this to have an extremely clean studio track for an album.
I'm still a bit befuddled as to why Docker is necessary in this case at all. Python has enough tools for package and dependancy management, if you're wanting to set up a remote machine for personal development, again Docker seems like overkill. I understand and fully accept that it's part of the development ecosystem, and it's good to get and be comfortable with it, but much like the suggestion for VS Code (which I use in my day to day, with many of the extensions mentioned) it seems like overkill for a beginner and overly specific for an intermediate++ developer, who should be more in a camp of "use whatever makes me most productive".
Ah yes, those mild mental health issues that still get people fired for regularly under the auspice of "attendance issues," "cultural fit," or any of the numerous reasons they can get fired for that are totally the result of their mild mental health issue but have to be re-phrased so that the company doesn't get sued.
As someone with ADHD, anxiety/depression, and chronic migraines; the bullshit conversations and 'management' meetings I've had to sit through because people very much still don't have any understanding of these issues is staggering. While I am not getting fired for calling out twice or thrice in a week once in a while, that's mostly due to me being in a "knowledge worker" job, if I was in a customer facing job or other position that requires "butt in seat hours" I am certain that I would have already gotten canned 100 times over due to these mild mental health issues; because quantity attendance is more important that quality attendance in a lot of jobs.
OCD isn't a "normal thing that most people will encounter" problem, neither is depression, neither is anxiety; OCD isn't some "lol I need to fill my gas tank to a round dollar amount," depression isn't "boy howdy did I feel sad for a few weeks after that break-up," anxiety isn't "that was a bit stressful firing that employee." You can feel depressed without having depression, you can feel anxious without having anxiety, you can be exacting without having OCD; but none of the prior are mental illnesses while all of the latter are. So, while the __feeling__ has been normalized, the actual illness absolutely hasn't been; and from experience it's been made more difficult by the generalizing of the words, where now people equate the action/feeling with the much more serious illness - so now I have to spend time explaining how debilitating the actual illness is, just to have people go "well I feel depressed sometimes, and I'm here."
Quite frankly, one of the many reasons folks have to put how bad things are or can get out there is due to this conflation of the feeling with the illness; so you seeing these expressions of "things are actually this bad for me," and conflating it with "emotional porn" because "everybody experiences things like OCD, depression, anxiety, etc" is actually a perfect example of why I can very confidently say that the stigma about mental health hasn't changed that much; it's just been repackaged with a nicer bow.
Perfect world, it probably has a jagged split north to south drawing through Great Falls down to Billings/Hardin.
With this year's state legislature and Governor Body-slam; they'll try some stupid ass bs drawing down the rockies along the I15 corridor and splitting the two major dem hubs in the state (Bozeman and Missoula) rendering it set up perfectly for 2 republican representatives from here to eternity.
The easiest way to not get burried in shit isn't to dig yourself out or fling it back, but to side step it...
But tactics like this are actually at the core as to why I don't believe the author of the article is actually talking about debate (instead about discussions, dialectics, etc); since debate - at least how we establish it in both school and what we'll generously describe as 'debates' at the legislative level - is solely about 'winning' the argument, even if there's no win to be had.