That is the real rub. It is like the word 'hacker'. No amount of 'but it really means' will change that. It is like the Mandela effect. People see and hear and remember what they want, but reality can be very different. But they will still go about their day with the 'wrong way'. Life will be just fine with something like this being 'wrong'.
I use the 'promote better' ideas when dealing with people in poverty. Usually most of what happens is what I call 'bad choice' economics. Usually do one thing or another. One is not 'fun' the other is. The 'fun' one gets you right now but usually hurts you weeks from now. The not fun one helps you long term. Usually the excuse of 'oh I have money coming later' with no idea of what if 'later' does not happen.
One guy I had to talk down from having his car detailed (150 bucks) vs paying the 2 month late car payment. He literally did not think of the idea of they will take the car away from you if he did not make the payment, until I pointed it out to him. He was very fixated on the 'clean the car'. That is but one small example. I have hundreds of examples like that.
That short term thinking is absolutely acidic long term on you, your family, and friends. It can create a spiral that is very hard to get out of. Being poor costs substantially more long term as well. I as a wealthy person can buy things ahead of time when on sale because I know I will use them in the future. Being poor means you buy in the 'now'. You do not buy for the future because you do not have the means to do so. So on average simple things cost you more. But being in the 'now' can hurt you even worse by giving you fun vs not fun choices. But not being able to see you have been give an bit of 'luck' to make your future better.
The short term thinking was exacerbated by historical discrimination. There were cases where black businesses became successful but then were forced out by whites who wanted what they had. Such a system doesn’t promote long term thinking.
Not only that they would have either been using it consistently since they learned it or just learned it. I at one point could do differential equations (linear alg + calc). If you put one of the remedial problems in front of me I would not be able to do it. That info is just 'gone' from 25 years ago. But obviously I can do it. I got an A. I know enough right now to know what to go lookup so I could re-learn it if I needed to.
I live thousands of miles away from New York city. A few months ago I was reading about someone getting into an argument in central park. Why am I being show that? It was to provoke an emotional response out of me. They are using our emotions to manipulate us.
Or maybe the advent of easy to use and accessible recording devices is shining a light on the prejudice and abuse that people with certain characteristics have been suffering from for decades.
Those with political power in the US could conveniently turn a blind eye to the problem with plausible deniability with a he said she said excuse, but now they have to face the problem.
I think that’s an important development in the progress of my country.
You should be having an emotional response to the huge undercurrent of racism and classism pervading society.
Why? They were being quite racist towards each other. Should I get involved somehow? Other than 'be angry' what are my choices? I literally can not change what those two do to each other. I sure did not feel sympathy towards either of the two people. I see neither party doing much to help at all. I see one party who has promised to fix that exact issue and made it much worse with poor economic choices and making people think they are getting a good deal. The people of those cities have consistently voted for that. So it is what they wanted. Now they seem shocked that they have made it worse. They literally voted for it.
News is not news. It is entertainment. Pick your flavor and let them tell you how to feel.
It is designed to be addictive. Either by accident or deliberate is up for debate. I have my opinion on it but it is just that. They use your own feelings to manipulate you into watching/clicking for more. Facts matter little, feelings do in this segment of our world. Mr. Bernays should be proud of the monster he set loose upon us. Even the vaunted NPR does this. I noticed it years ago after a drive across the country and realizing they try to make it look like they were investigating things and not just reading something of one of the 4 or 5 news wires.
I recently upped my monthly donation to my local NPR station, and I feel like if anything it's made me more critical of them. Probably most of it is that I lean politically Right, and they lean Left. But it feels like sometimes they just go out of their way to try to check all the boxes of "woke" culture, whatever the hell that is.
The example that sticks out in my mind is they did a piece on immigration detention centers a few weeks back (no qualms there). The person they chose to interview was a transgender Guatamalen.
It's basically the most on-brand thing the reporter could have done. Talking about immigration? Better throw in some LGBT issues as well.
It's too much I guess to expect a news organization to just report on the news.
When I get feeling really irritated about it, I calm myself down by rationalizing that I like the music they play in the evenings.
Without having listened to that piece, it occurs to me that one reason for specifically including the perspective of a transgender individual in the radio segment may have been that under the current administration there have been _major_ changes to our country's policies around asylum. "Fear of persecution for sexual orientation or transgender status" is one of the one of the more common reasons that people seek asylum in the US, after all. Just a thought...
I found the article [1]. Looks like they crossed Coronavirus off the bingo card too.
Like I said, it's perfectly on-brand for them.
My wife and I have a running joke (which I think I've seen pop up elsewhere too) about how Terry Gross picks her interview guests based on how many items the guest ticks on the "diversity checklist"
Absolutely you get out what you put in. My company has thousands of programmers. I was in charge of helping a group of programmers self learn a new framework/language. It started off with 30. It ended up with me alone in a room. This was easily 3k worth of free classes. It was not even that hard you just had to watch some videos and maybe do some simple coding, maybe 1-2 hours a week, 9 sessions over 3 months. Most just did not do it, which means they would not show up to the sessions. By the last 2 sessions I just did not bother to try to get them to come. There were 3 I could kind of coach along and get them to sometimes engage. But mostly they just were not interested in helping themselves. They wanted me to sit in front of the 'class' and teach it. Now that I think about it this could be a good way to filter for people who are motivated to do work. But it would bias against people who have a full schedule.
Open source is going to be used to co-opt people into service contracts. For example one product I use right now. If you use it in a very particular way you do not have to pay much if at all to use it. But if you get out of that lane you need to goto the 'service contract' route. I am not talking 10 dollars a month either. I am talking 1-3k per machine. These things almost all want clusters. So usually at least 3. If you are using that level you probably will want at least 2 areas (dev, prod), more if you are doing it 'right'. So now your 'free' stuff just went sideways and now costs 200k+ just to get the software, per year. Oh but just use AWS/Azure/Google you say, add even more to that cost as they bury it in their usage fees. Then on top of that you need to develop your own programs.
I predict the open source bits will be bait. With many 90% solutions. The proprietary bits will be the ones you need to make it work like a real program. Oh there will still be soup to nuts full on free stacks. But I seeing more and more of this service fee way.
As for making hiring easier? Not so much. When you can get 100+ applicants for 1 position. The reality is at least 99 of those have to go away. One more filter does not do much other than let you round bin things faster say 'cant find anyone' then grab your favorite contracting firm and hire them anyway.
Elasticsearch was (is?) like that with AWS. The managed version lacked a lot of important enterprise features (LDAP integration) and was "optimized" to require several times as many machines for the same storage, since you had a ~1.5TB disk limit per node.
But I went from needing technical support from elastic 4-5 times a year, to zero and found work arounds for the other limitations, like cognito for authorization and storing less data in the cluster. The end result was a six-figure savings on licensing and less weekend work for me at the cost of a five-figure increase in AWS costs.
There were other smartphones at that time that were just as good if not better. Mr Jobs did something no one else did. He attached a good data plan to it. At that time think along the lines of 20-50 dollars for a couple of megabytes per month. The iPhone basically had unlimited he insisted upon it AT&T was the only one who did it because they wanted that on their network. That was the real game changer. Google about a year later did the same thing.
