If your goal is high academic achievement, the only real answer is a stable home life, parent-enforced discipline and high parental expectations (note I said expectations not involvement - highly “involved” parents can be worse than the neglectful ones). That’s it. That’s the big secret. Show me a school full of tired/neglected/hungry/unruly students and I’ll show you a school full of students that are going to be almost impossible to teach effectively. There will be exceptions of course, but kids who aren’t parented properly at home will struggle massively to learn at school.
You can throw all the money, new techniques and technology you want to at the problem. It will not get better without fixing that fundamental issue.
I find it endlessly frustrating that this doesn’t get more prominence - there are studies from the early 20th century showing that the biggest factors in performance were things like housing and food stability, dentistry and glasses, etc. but fixing those problems drags up enough unpleasant societal choices that a lot of people prefer not to talk about it.
My wife is a public school teacher and I’ll never forget the time early on that an administrator tried to say she could deal with a kid who was absent more than half the time by making her classes “more engaging”. That kid reported rarely sleeping more than two nights under the same roof.
My wife too was a public school teacher for a decade, and resigned from sheer frustration and exhaustion. It became abundantly clear toward the end of her tenure that no amount of effort or technique was going to make the situation better. It’s really a completely broken system.
The primary reason I became a software engineer at middle age was to make enough money and have good enough health insurance that she could have the freedom to leave a job that was killing her mentally and physically.
I agree and I have the evidence needed to back up your claims.
Stable home life? checked.
Parent-enforced discipline? checked.
High parental expectations? checked. Through some involvement though, to some degree: we as parents always show real and positive interest on what our children are doing and learning without really interfering unless they explicitly ask for it, and I believe this helps dearly. I learned by doing, trying at first to get involved too much - proved to be a mistake which he corrected it by himself, jumping from an IT career to chemistry in notime and shortly hitting silver at international chemistry olympics.
I never try to interfere anymore but just be there, always ready to talk about it and offer the emotional grounding they so much need. Kids will flourish. My elder is on his way to what seems to be a strong, well built medical career and my 6yr old oh boy, she's ready set.
Parent-modeled discipline is arguably just as important. The strengths and struggles in a young person are quite often some analog of the strengths and struggles of their parents. Dealing with the distractions of life and focus on what is truly valuable is a respectable challenge at any age. The expectations and enforcement can be high, but if that is missing, kids are going to struggle and school is going to feel like pretend.
It makes me _irate_ when the solution is "just throw more money at the problem, that will fix education!"
Like, irrationally mad. It is lazy. It is soulless. It is callous. It is arrogant. It is detached from reality.
"Education will fix the problems in schools!" is circular logic.
My pet theory, and this will bet destroyed here, is that we should have developed birth control for males a loonnngg time ago. Accidental kids that have dad peace out on them usually never get a fair shake at life.
Well I for one am always in favor of arbitrary humans having better ways to voluntarily attenuate their own fertility, full stop.
We may have a depopulation shock problem on our hands at the moment, but trying to encourage more accidental births isn't the way to solve that: we need to increase social and financial incentives for forming families and pull away as many of the social and financial barriers thereupon that we can. Not to increase population but to better slow the free-fall of it decreasing so badly that it upsets the actuarial tables.
While I have no way to assess whether better male birth control options would directly positively impact education in particular, I see zero ways it could negatively impact it.
It seems like there’s very little upside to allowing one in your state. They don’t bring in large amounts of new jobs once construction is done, they leech power and water like vampires increasing costs and depleting resources, they add noise and light pollution to nearby areas, they’re ugly. They only seem to benefit large tech companies.
The US has been dragging its feet in increasing power capacity and modernizing the grid. Data Centers (and one day EVs) are the kind of push we need to get the complacent monopolies to do the work.
The water concerns are absolutely overblown, the paper that everyone draws their numbers from had to be ammended because they had a 1000x water usage error.
When a poor town has an empty lot get converted to a data center, they are getting some jobs. 20 jobs of remote hands, plumbers, and security guards is better than zero. And there is increased tax revenue (this point I disagree with, because property tax is wrong and we need a land value tax).
And those companies hire more people in the area. I don't care if the guy is driving 30 minutes to work. I know plenty of people whose careers are "security" . Why would I not want them to have more work?
> Data Centers (and one day EVs) are the kind of push we need to get the complacent monopolies to do the work.
Genuinely interested to know, has this actually happened on a larger scale? I.e. data centers triggering a systematic push to modernize the grid?
My impression (from headlines) was that companies either accept rising prices for grid power or generate their own power - using noisy, polluting and CO2 emitting gas turbines. In both situations the local communities are left holding the bag.
> they are getting some jobs. 20 jobs of remote hands, plumbers, and security guards is better than zero.
They'll also have made sure they won't ever get any more jobs from that "investment" over the next decades, whereas someone else could have built something with actual job growth instead.
I think those takes are a bit like saying the Fentanyl factory next door is great because it also needs a janitor and the exhaust contains CO2 so will make the plants grow faster.
Small power plants are less efficient and more polluting than larger ones. They are also harder to inspect and certify on a regular schedule. A single 1GW power facility in your county is much better than 10000 small power plants, one for each business.
True, centralized power generation using a grid that can carry that load would be the best solution. But in absence of that, the alternatives only seem to be between inefficient decentralized green and inefficient decentralized non-green solutions. In that case, I'd opt for the green ones. (Or of course: no datacenter at all)
LOL. You’d need thousands of acres of solar panels to provide power for a single data center. Of course the exact area needed depends on what part of the world you’re in, but are you going to put up with 4 square miles of solar panels in your city? That’s a square two miles on a side, or 3.4km×3.4km. Or are you going to let them install hundreds of wind turbines in your neighborhood?
One very simple way to give parents control over what their children see and participate in without violating everyone else’s privacy is to create adult and social TLDs and require these sites to migrate to them. So instagram.com becomes instagram.social, etc. Then mandate that all consumer network equipment mfrs and internet providers provide easily accessible ways to block these TLDs. Maybe combine that with some public education materials to teach less savvy parents how to do this.
Now you’ve given every parent a way to easily mass block all adult/social sites/apps if they want and no one’s privacy need be compromised.
This idea has been around as long as the web, but you can't get momentum behind it.
A much better idea was a .kids domain where the content was vetted, and you could allow-list your child's device to that. Much easier than trying to migrate everyone over to specific TLDs, especially when that ship has sailed already. But that never got traction either.
Edit to add: I used to work on "family safety" software. Blocking bad content doesn't work - it's too difficult of a problem. Walled gardens do work, however. The fact that there's not a push for the equivalent of an Apple App Store for kids is probably evidence of ulterior motives on behalf of regulators.
One of the problems is the binary nature: we lump everyone between 0 and 18 years old into a "kids" bucket, but the content appropriate for a 17 year old is very different from the content appropriate for a 4 year old.
My family has tried the curated "kids" content from the major players: It's junk and not going to be interesting to a teenager. Your 14 year old is not going to be satisfied with a version of Netflix that's all Bluey and Daniel Tiger. And your 5 year old probably shouldn't be watching stuff that's made for teenagers. But our regulatory hammer knows only "kid" or "not-kid". You can't make a single walled garden.
Even within a single age. My 15 year old might not be ready for content that your 15 year old finds to be routine. How is YouTube going to know what is appropriate for any given 15 year old? Walled-off content and numerical age gating is just not a workable solution.
There was some optimism with .xxx that adult content producers would voluntarily switch over. Spoiler: almost none of them did, except for domain name availability reasons.
You're massively underestimating rule interpretation skills of horny teenagers and gambling game developers. Total segregation based on actual solid cold hard ruleset is pure gasoline to them.
What this misses is that many parents do allow their children to access social media because kids need to conform. If all the other kids have social media access, your kid is excluded by not having access.
Is it better to have TikTok AND friends, or no TikTok and no friends? Sure, the best is no TikTok and still have friends, but you can't always have it all.
That’s fine because an enforced TLD system would default to them being allowed to access social networks and parents having an easy way to block them. It makes it easier for parents to do their jobs and doesn’t affect everyone else. Want your kids to have access to social media? Just…do nothing.
This is such a naive take, I see it a lot. Have you considered they can:
* Buy one themselves
* Get / use a friend's
* Use public internet access points
* Need one for school
* Use the smart fridge / tv / gaming console / anything with a browser
* Access stuff in Minecraft, Roblox, etc
You can only stop it by going offline and raising them in a cabin in the woods, which is a whole other thing.
What you can do is give them The Talk, of course (but that only helps / prevents to a point, it's more to prepare them for what they may find or how they can identify problematic things). And the other is to push back as a community effort, with e.g. many schools banning kids from having phones in the first place.
Have you considered that even if unwanted material was only accessible in physical form with age restriction for buying. Like porn magazines, cigarettes or alcoholic drinks, kids can still access them and find a way around it. You can ask older generations. Perhaps you can't stop it by "going offline and raising them in a cabin in the woods".
Best is to assume they have access to it one way or another if they seek it. The discussion should not be about banning vs allowing, it should be focused around how to deal with situations that arise regardless.
Education about the subject and why kids shouldn't seek access is quite effective, additionally they will be informed once they are allowed access. Think about how the last decades saw a sharp decline in smoking and alcohol consumption.
I think the earlier commenter is right. If a parent fails to... well... "parent" that's on them. Locking down the internet to republican-approved sites only is not the answer.
One problem (there are others) is that it's not always possible (or easy) to not give your kid a smartphone, or access to social media.
Imagine that your kid doesn't have those and is having a hard time at school because all the other kids do have them. They have a whole culture based around those, and your kid is excluded from it. What do you do? Tell your kid that it's okay to wait 10 more years before hoping to not be excluded?
Block how? You can block sites now and all it takes is a proxy/vpn to get around it. Nothing short of personalized age verification will work. The best we can do is make sure the age verification system is centralized by the government. The client sites can’t see who you are and the centralized government server should not be able to see the sites you visit.
The only way this can go wrong is if the client sites collude and publish their visitor logs and then the government can do the legwork to identify you. But even this is pretty easily bypassed if you use a VPN.
>Nothing short of personalized age verification will work.
Specifically, daily personalized age verification by the specific app/website, not by a third party.
>The only way this can go wrong is if the client sites collude and publish their visitor logs and then the government can do the legwork to identify you.
Well, the government has the right to request proof that the company in question is properly conducting the age verification process. This means that the companies performing age verification will keep your personally identifying information (PII) and maintain an association between your PII and your account/activity on the platform.
On a different note, the government has the right to gather evidence of criminal activity, where the definition of "criminal" is under their discretion and if there happens to be a convenient stash of information that can be linked to your person, that's just a happy coincidence.
Whether such a system could be bypassed by a VPN would depend on exactly how the age verification works and whether said government decides to ban the use of VPNs.
More importantly, I don't personally have any faith that at least the US government could properly define and build a system that is reliably and provably resistant to tracking. The government has incentives to want to know what sites a person visits, the NSA would be loathed to allow that opportunity to go unused. The government also likely doesn't have the skills or resources to do it in house, I'd expect them to outsource it at an absurd cost to a third party that would also have incentives to want to track usage data through the system.
Reminder that the internet was created to be live and a indestructible means of reaching one and another, none of what you wrote can meaningfully do what you think it would.
Failing in parenting and lobbied politicians (regulatory capture) on the other side.
Like a lot of tech trends, home automation tends to be a solution looking for a problem. Video doorbells are a useful exception, but light switches, kitchen appliances and thermostats just aren’t something I need to be connected to the internet.
The internet? Probably not. Having smart switches is great though. Both for very basic automations and laying in bed going "oh shit I forgot to turn off the basement lights" style moments.
It's important though that all those things work together locally in a reliable manner. All mine fallback to "wired" mode if all else fails. The connectivity is just a bonus. One lightswitch near the bed to go into "bedtime mode" for all common areas of the house is pretty handy for me.
Smart locks are a great idea in theory, but the horribleness of the residential door lock standards make them kinda suck in practice in terms of mechanical reliability. I went with a full blown commercial access system and don't regret it. Being able to remotely add folks while I'm traveling or allowing temporary guest access without physical keys is great.
Honestly I find video doorbells a downgrade and an obnoxious addition to our anti-social societal trends. Although that's rather hypocritical since I also have one!
The big issue for me in the Home Automation space is every stupid manufacturer wanted their own silly standard and/or app to "own" the user experience. Fuck that.
Given that Plex just bumped their lifetime subscription price to $750, I can no longer recommend them. They are clearly more interested in becoming another streaming service, and are I think trying to push out their core users who probably make them very little money.
Interesting, their price bump announcement actually just went and made me upgrade to lifetime (at $250 while I could) instead of write them off completely.
Netflix will never allow you to pay a one time fee for life, neither will any other streaming service on the planet.
Meanwhile, plex is a company that has employees. If I like plex, use it heavily, and want to support them I can do so with money. There are alternatives that are completely free, but I don’t like them as much and the minimal cost for plex is totally worth the value for me.
Goes to show how inoculated I am against banner ads I suppose.
Either way part of me feels like it’s for the best. One off payment for lifetime membership of an app that has continual development isn’t a great business model.
the only things i care about is some essy enough to use upload process, basic serving, then that theres some smart enough local caching on whatever device im using
The problem is that code it spits out on the fly is untested and untrustworthy. Identify the parts of your workflow that could be accomplished with regular code - write and unit test that code, with LLM help if you want, and use the llm as the orchestrator only.
I’m a bootcamp grad (although it was an intense 5-night a week, year long bootcamp, not some 6-week build-a-demo class). I have a college degree but it’s in the arts.
I do try to continually improve my skill set, refresh on design patterns, etc. I’m currently employed and have been for the last six years. I don’t really know if I fall in category 3 or not.
What, in your opinion are the “foundational” CS skills the #3 people are missing?
If you mean obsolete in the sense of "no longer fit for purpose" I don't think that's true. They may become obsolete in terms of "can't do hottest new thing" but that's true of pretty much any technology. A capable local model that can do X will always be able to do X, it just may not be able to do Y. But if X is good enough to solve your problem, why is a newer better model needed?
I think if we were able to achieve ~Opus 4.6 level quality in a local model that would probably be "good enough" for a vast number of tasks. I think it's debatable whether newer models are always better - 4.7 seems to be somewhat of a regression for example.
If your child says they've learned their multiplication tables but they can't actually multiply any numbers you give them do they actually know how to do multiplication? I would say no.
For some reason people are perfectly able to understand this in the context of, say, cursive, calculator use, etc., but when it comes to their own skillset somehow it's going to be really different.
Yeah this is the way. Blender has a higher learning curve than AE but it’s ultimately much better at actual 3d than AE is, and the recent improvements to the interface have made it a lot more usable.
You can throw all the money, new techniques and technology you want to at the problem. It will not get better without fixing that fundamental issue.
reply