I don't know. This seems to be the thrust of his arguments:
"By delegating information curation to multiple independent parties with demonstrated domain knowledge and critical ability, I ensure that what I read is not a mere reflection of what I believe."
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Do you have any specific critique of "Abnormal Returns" and "The Big Picture," the curators he cites?
Now that organizations like Khan Academy have traction and resources, I think they'll be able to bridge the gap. They'll be able to iterate as they receive feedback from the educational community.
It would be nice if when teachers gave them feedback, they'd act on it. Unfortunately, it seems that any criticism of the Khan Academy is seen as an attack on the whole of the Silicon Valley, and every geek comes out to lead the charge against the educators suggesting that they have entirely the wrong approach.
Instead of viewing mathematics as a series of problems to be solved, each of which has a solution, maybe it would be neat of the Khan Academy actually spoke to some educators (and then publicly announced the results of this consultation)?
What would you suggest calling running pilot studies at schools (both affluent and lower-income), like Khan Academy has done with schools in Los Altos and Oakland (http://educationnext.org/can-khan-move-the-bell-curve-to-the...), and getting feedback and suggestions from the teachers who are implementing the pilot programs? Of course they could they do even more (although who of us really knows who they've spoken to and how much/what about), but it's a bit unfair to suggest that they haven't been working with educators.
The lessons they're learning from the massive amounts data they've been collecting from real students (ones outside the pilot programs, who are using their material in an uncontrolled, natural manner) also shouldn't be discounted, and I would argue that it might be as useful as talking to educators can be. It's definitely a Silicon Valley thing to put data up on a pedestal, but should it be valued any less than education research that can be hard to generalize from due to problems with experimental design (like giving extensive training to teachers in the experimental conditions when it's unlikely that most teachers who'll have to implement the same experimental curriculum will have the same sort of training/enthusiasm) or anecdotal evidence from teachers working with one or two classes?
Are you talking about the feedback in this article? Its sort of hard to act on "Using computers to teach math is just stupid".
As to why many people might want to defend Khan Academy, well, its because I think I would have been much happier with Khan Academy than the math education I actually had, and I would very much like it to be available to children like myself. I was bored stiff in math class in middle and high school, and being able to work at my own base, not bound by the slowest person in the class, would have been amazing.
We have arrived at a point where innovation in education is just beginning. Khan Academy doesn't have all of the answers, but they have made a significant contribution to the marketplace of ideas and tools, which will continue to evolve and grow.
That type of innovation is the key to significant progress. And this sort of discussion will drive it forward.
So many people seem eager to pick the winners and losers in this space right now. It is a bit early for that.
It's funny, I had just the opposite reaction. To my eyes it seems like we have technology that far exceeds what they envisioned but we haven't managed to be anywhere near as effective at the predicted at using it. To run down the list...
"The home will double as a place of employment" - We easily have the technology to do this and I'd guess 80% or more of jobs could be done from home yet the established pre-information technology culture keeps us driving into the office every day.
"Home-based shopping will permit consumers to control manufacturing directly" - Services like Amazon have made a lot more available but the products are largely the same. The technology exists for far greater customization but the profit margin would be lower so no one has done it.
"A new profession of information ''brokers'' and ''managers'' will emerge" - This has happened but rather than "monitor" politicians and corporations these brokers tend to work for them more often than not.
"The ''extended family'' might be recreated if the elderly can support themselves through electronic homework" - I'd concede e-mail has made it easier to keep in touch with my grandparents but beyond that technology hasn't done that much for me. Heck, one of my grandparents has an iPhone now and we don't even do the weepy video chats like you see in the Apple commercials.
I guess you could say it has created some diversity in politics by giving voice to the minority but the two biggest Political Internet phenomenons of the last decade (Howard Dean and Ron Paul) didn't get anywhere near being in actual power.
"The technology exists for far greater customization but the profit margin would be lower so no one has done it."
CafePress, Zazzle, Shapeways, etc. I'll agree that it isn't as wide-spread as you might have expected from the prediction, but per-order production does exist.
Also, Howard Dean and Ron Paul HAVE actual power. Sure, they aren't the president, but to imply that governors, senators and congresspersons don't have any "REAL" power undersells both the positions and the work involved.
"Home-based shopping will permit consumers to control manufacturing directly" - Services like Amazon have made a lot more available but the products are largely the same. The technology exists for far greater customization but the profit margin would be lower so no one has done it.
The technology to do that is 3D printing, but it's at a very early stage right now. I think they got this right in 1982 but underestimated how long it would take -- maybe because they didn't understand how much competitive manufacturing depends on scale and offshoring.
What's also interesting is that almost any other predictions they could have made would have become partially true. There's virtually every service and idea imaginable online now to at least some degree. I'd be shocked if most of the prediction didn't become at least a bit true since they're extrapolated from the non-internet world.
I think the tea party has been driven mostly by traditional media, namely talk radio and cable news (Rick Santelli's original rant was broadcast on CNBC). Of course there has been a lot of online organization but I think the main promotion occurred over traditional channels.
Santelli's rant occurred on CNBC, but it was watched and shared on YouTube. Mainstream media totally missed the Tea Party movement, which got rolling during the bailouts in late 2008 but wasn't really covered until after Scott Brown's surprise election win in the winter of 2010.
Investors want higher margins but obviously Amazon is investing substantially in itself. So far, though, Bezos seems to be winning the tug of war. Many analysts are glad to see higher revenue and feel that Amazon is cementing its position at the top of the ecommerce world. AMZN shares are up over 5% despite the earnings miss.
I wonder if the green usernames may actually help posts by new users gain traction. I found myself more likely to take a look--curious to see what sort of submissions new users are offering.
"Picoprojectors are a nascent feature addition to smartphones. Although very small in number, this category promises to create higher multiples of traffic due to the high bandwidth required to project images and videos from an advanced mobile device."
I'm not so sure, though. Will picoprojectors really change consumption habits that dramatically?
It only takes a few calculations to realize that picoprojectors are unlikely to become a "big thing", simply based on power requirements. The only possible exception would be projection directly into the human eye. Even very powerful projectors are difficult to be seen in anything other than the lowest light conditions.
