So you want to maximise economic rent on the education of the masses and you wonder why societies are resistant to that, plainly because the outcome is horrendous.
Horrendous educational products are probably better than every institution in some regions, the median community college in other regions, etc..
Academic institutions, even very poor ones, have a lot of local leverage through employing academics who are integrated in the community and that is largely lost in distance education.
If you go and try to make an awful school somewhere I think you will get a great deal of assistance compared to if you offer a much better online education to the area built somewhere else.
Solving a problem and asking someone to pay for it doesn't have to be "rent seeking". If you want a service to work well and continue to, it's in your best interest to pay for it.
Who is getting the service here the individual or society. A neoliberal world view might assume there is no society but that is patently absurd.
If society wants too have a functioning and prosperous economy it should provide education as a utility not something that's geared towards profit. If anyone thinks neoliberal solutions will bring anything other than economic rent seeking you've been living under a rock for the last 40 years.
This sounds very similar to how Henri Bergson describes time in Time and Free Will.
Particularly chapter 2 the Multiplicity of Psychic States. And as he says the fault is making extensity out of duration and therefore producing nothing more than the ghost of space. I can't possibly do it justice here, highly recommended read for the curious of thought.
When I grew up there were all cars on the streets, and before cars there were horse and carts which had their own dangers. Over the last 150 years the distance that parents have allowed their children to roam has gradually diminished from many miles to essentially be the other room.
I feel this is more a product of our risk obsessed society, everything is about analysing and taking action to reduce risk. You can hear it everywhere, risk reduction, risk based analysis etc.
Edit: and in the interest of full disclosure I'm a father of 3 and know exactly how hard this is. I can't imagine me being comfortable with what I got up to as a child and that's the tragedy.
The risk is real, but not how you think. The risk of children getting hurt is actually the lowest it's ever been, but risk of legal trouble is the highest it's ever been.
We let our children roam and got a visit from the police because of it. Someone reported "unsupervised children". The police came to our door and started questioning us.
My wife just kept saying, "did we do anything illegal?" and "were they unsafe?".
The police ultimately admitted that they were perfectly safe and we did nothing illegal, but warned us that, "it just looks bad and you should be more careful".
We've also been scolded by other parents at the park when we let our kids go to the other side of the park 100 yards away. "How could you let them go so far? What if they get hurt or need you?"
It makes us not want to let them roam, just to avoid the hassle.
> The police ultimately admitted that they were perfectly safe and we did nothing illegal, but warned us that, "it just looks bad and you should be more careful".
The police need to stop taking these reports seriously and stop responding to "look bad". They're supposed to be enforcing the law, not the look. If some nosey busybody reports something happening where there is no law being broken, they need to be told in no uncertain terms to STFU and stop wasting law enforcement's time. Better yet, have light criminal consequences for this kind of misuse of emergency lines.
The incentives for the police don't encourage this outcome. Imagine if something does happen and there is a report in the local newspaper that the neighbors had reported to the police multiple times but they did nothing. Better to CYA and give the parents a talking to and be seen to have done something than to do nothing at all. Situations like this is what should give you pause before reaching for your pitchforks next time you hear of someone screwing up royally.
What ages are you talking about? Where I live (in the US) I can’t imagine parents scolding me if I let my kids wander 100 yards from me, unless they were very young.
What capital risks? Private equity many times purchases a company, loads it up with debt, strips it off assets, pay themselves fat dividends and then walks away when it all falls apart.
You are essentially saying that the roughnecks that work the rig for $30-40 an hour should be owning it. They don't have the capital to own it and pay for the oil rights to use it, or the risk tolerance that it will sit idle and still have to be maintained, stored in a rented warehouse, and guarded when regulation does not allow them to be used. Nor is there any evidence they would be able to successfully run an oil company even if they were given it for free -- compliance issues surrounding commodities deals typically require a different skillset than the guy working the rig.
The vast majority of businesses are not software. Virtually all industry has capital outlay requirements and capital risks equal to or greater to this.
This has been debated for 100s of years and the era of funny money that is created at the stroke of a key i don't see how we can maintain the view that it should be so skewed towards capital.
Shifting away from using capital as the basis for resources allocation has been tried repeatedly and failed catastrophically every time. There's no mechanism than the market better to optimize the problems of supply, demand, and logistics.
However, something should definitely be done about funny money printers. There are plenty of mechanisms in history shown to be successful dealing with them, such as going to where they live and taking care of them in the dead of night. I agree that massive inflation is a serious problem, but the solution is not to say "let's get rid of the utility of money!" -- it is to punish the people subverting market utility for their own gain.
Trying to change reality because a small group of bad actors is absurd. Just get rid of the bad actors.
The glaring question is how and why it was rolled out everywhere all at once?
Many corporations have pretty strict rules on system update scheduling so as to ensure business continuity in case of situations like this but all of those were completely circumvented and we had fully synchronised global failure. It really does not seem like business as usual situation.
The glaring question is how and why it was rolled out everywhere all at once?
Because the point of these updates is to be rolled out quickly and globally. It wasn't a system/driver update, but a data file update: think antivirus signature file. (Yes, I know it can get complicated, and that AV signatures can be dynamic... not the point here.)
Why those data updates skipped validity testing at the source is another question, and one that CrowdStrike better be prepared to answer; but the tempo of redistribution can't be changed.
A customer should be able to test an update, whether a signature file or literally any kind of update, before rolling it out to production systems. Anything else is madness. Being "vulnerable" for an extra few hours carries less risk than auto-updates (of any kind) on production systems. As we've seen here. If you can point to hard evidence to the contrary, where many companies were saved just in time because of a signature update and would have been exploited if they'd waited a few hours, I'd love to read about it. It would have to have happened on a rather large scale for all of the instances combined to have had a larger positive impact than this single instance.
Is it realistic that there's a threat actor that will be attacking every computer on the whole planet at once?
I can understand that it's most practical to update everyone when pushing an update to protect a few actively under attack but I can also imagine policies where that isn't how it's done, while still getting urgent updates to those under attack.
which crowdstrike gets to bypass because they claime themselves as an antivirus and malware detection platform - at least, this is what the executives they've wined and dined into the purchase contracts have been told. The update schedule is independently controlled by crowdstrike, rather than by a system admin i believe.
From the article on The Verge it seems that this kind of update is downloaded automatically even if you disable automatic updates. So those users who took this kind of issue seriously would have thought that everything was configured correctly to not automatically update.
They are assuming that crowdstrike is telling them the truth, but yeah I keep thinking about Kaspersky too. That's a whole other pile of assumptions though.
I chose to use prolog to essentially build an expert system across and heterogeneous data ecosystem.
Prolog could certainly use some serious improvements to its tooling. But the language is simple enough that it doesn't prove too much of an issue. You can get some much out of language it can be very powerful. In the system we've built it makes up a purely logical core that is completely referentially transparent, we leave all the ecky side effecting to a host program.
This, I don't understand why we have to load these languages up with so much syntax, it's mind boggling to think that some how we feel it's beneficial to have so much. I'm admittedly biased to the symbolic expression but surely we could have come up with some middle ground.
The problem is that the abstractions we are forced to create do not drastically change how we can think about the problem domain in question.
We're often just hiding some mechanical details when in truth we should be searching for and codifying fundamental ontologies about the given domain.
It's hard because at the same time we can't yet be users because the thing does not yet exist, but yet we can't really know what we must build without a user to inform us. We can create some imaginary notions with various creative explorations, but images can often deceive.
I do believe the tools most used for software development are fundamentally terrible at modelling these ontologies and are really little more than telling computer to do A then do B and so have never really abstracted much at all.
reply