In my home-town there is a garage/factory which mainly recruits all kinds of disabled people. They produce e.g. wooden chairs, cup holders and the-like but also purely artistic decorative stuff. All on very different levels i.e. some people nail some wooden sticks together as they have been told, some have complex jobs (if they are able).
For sure, all of the tasks they do during the day can be automated and in-fact are automated at the big facilities. However, people like to buy their products - not only because they like to support them and to give them the chance to contribute to the community (like it was said in the video: they pay taxes and everything) but also because there is a general market for hand-made stuff.
There is always a small niche of consumers who prefer hand-made stuff because of its individual charm etc. over the soul-less mass-manufactured alternative. I believe that this demand exists precisely because of the rise of automation (and thus is unlikely to vanish is automation is pushed furhter).
I'd also argue that working in a woodworking shop - being able to actually create something and (if the handicap/IQ allows for it) even be creative - has a much better effect on overall quality of live than working on a assembly-line bullshit job.
I don't know of a handicap which does not allow you to work in any of these kind of jobs but does allow you to assort plastic from paper within reasonable amount of time (but I'm sure someone can give me an example; in that case I'd argue that its up to us to find or "invent" a suitable job or some helper-device to enable them to do so - we have the money to do this).
So yes, maybe getting rid of that particular job is the best thing that could happen to the guy in the video - provided there is another job-alternative available that does not only let him add value to the consumer-society but also to the intellectual and creative parts of it as well as of himself (relative to his level of disability).
This was one of the reasons why the use of such tools was strictly prohibited at my former university.
Another argument given was:
even if you only have to *think* about using such a tool you are already in a situation where good scientific practices is no longer guaranteed. In other words: if you/the students would have followed all rules of good scientific practise right from the beginning, you would never need to use such a tool.
But I guess if you are the developer of such a tool or work in that area of research, you probably see things differently...
Also; how many different ways are there to explain rules on scientific practices within 150 word? How much similarities would you expect from O(100) different students - even if they write independently? - I'm not sure if that is taken into account in such tools.
On a different scale: when piping e.g. a typical PhD thesis though such a tool, the first introductory paragraphs will always have red flags (simply because that topic was already introduced 10000 times and everyone read more or less the same introductory textbooks).
The important part - the main part of the thesis - of course should be unique (but if the supervisor/examist/committee is not able to "detect" this in their own, well...).
Of course literally copy&paste an introduction is still not okay. But -as the blogger also said- this can easily detected by issuing a simple yawhoogle search in case the text already reads suspicious (e.g. if the style of writing varies a lot between paragraphs etc).
So yes, I'd agree that the use of such tools is relatively limited when it comes to "real" scientific works but in this particular case it was quite neat to see how easily you can use it to atomatise the collection of evidences if you have a large class of students...
My first thought was that this is some kind of delayed april fool, since all color schemes looked the same (b/w) to me, until I realised that I have to turn-on javascript.
Depending on the field of research it is quite common to publish only in open access journals [1]. At my university, we are actually only allowed to publish in peer-reviewed OA journals. Most of them provide a paid subscription for the print version while the online version is free and open to everyone.
However, I got the (personal) impression, that this is only well established in fundamental research (which typically comes with few economic interest). As soon as the research is not paid by the state but by private companies (such as in medicine, robotics or any other "applied sciences"), scientists have a hard time to choose a OA journal (i.e. either it does not exist or you are not allowed to publish there). Changing this scheme is of course quite difficult, since too many commercial parties still benefit from it (which likely can only be change by law)...
Abstract: Geometry, calculus and in particular integrals, are too often seen by young students as technical tools with no link to the reality. This fact generates into the students a loss of interest with a consequent removal of motivation in the study of such topics and more widely in pursuing scientific curricula. With this note we put to the fore a simple example of practical interest where the above concepts prove central; our aim is thus to motivate students and to reverse the dropout trend by proposing an introduction to the theory starting from practical applications. More precisely, we will show how using a mixture of geometry, calculus and integrals one can easily share a watermelon into regular slices with equal volume.
We run a stupidly simple (though small scale) gitlab instance in docker (official image its kinda one-click install). You get mattermost automatically, just need to enable it in the gitlab config and it will install/run mattermost within the gitlab container without any troubles.
So if you already have (self-hosted) gitlab, mattermost is easy to setup and maintain (actually no extra effort at all). Depends of course on the number of users, I guess...
The integrations with gitlab issues/groups/etc are also look neat but are barely used tbh. Cant compare with rocket.chat.
For sure, all of the tasks they do during the day can be automated and in-fact are automated at the big facilities. However, people like to buy their products - not only because they like to support them and to give them the chance to contribute to the community (like it was said in the video: they pay taxes and everything) but also because there is a general market for hand-made stuff. There is always a small niche of consumers who prefer hand-made stuff because of its individual charm etc. over the soul-less mass-manufactured alternative. I believe that this demand exists precisely because of the rise of automation (and thus is unlikely to vanish is automation is pushed furhter).
I'd also argue that working in a woodworking shop - being able to actually create something and (if the handicap/IQ allows for it) even be creative - has a much better effect on overall quality of live than working on a assembly-line bullshit job. I don't know of a handicap which does not allow you to work in any of these kind of jobs but does allow you to assort plastic from paper within reasonable amount of time (but I'm sure someone can give me an example; in that case I'd argue that its up to us to find or "invent" a suitable job or some helper-device to enable them to do so - we have the money to do this).
So yes, maybe getting rid of that particular job is the best thing that could happen to the guy in the video - provided there is another job-alternative available that does not only let him add value to the consumer-society but also to the intellectual and creative parts of it as well as of himself (relative to his level of disability).