I would describe them as pessimistic rather than irrational. They just believe that instead of going with an option like you proposed, companies will push toward unregulated options.
Since I don't know their backgrounds and don't have any background working with video game company executives it's hard to tell which options are more likely.
I do think the general purpose screens of today are doing a disservice for education. There are too many possible distractions a child isn't prepared to resist yet. But it could enable more advanced workflow for personalized learning.
I think the k-shaped economy where some people are financially succeeding while the rest go through hardship is a reflection of a k-shaped education system where those who are able to ignore the distractions and succeed are doing well. The top of the k can use more edtech as they just need tools for further educational attainment. Things modern edtech can bring. The bottom of the k has different needs.
I was also one who spent their time playing dota in high school. In my experience one can learn more from playing dota than the average social media experience. Understanding team dynamics and emotional regulation to negative experiences outside your control. If you take the game seriously even prioritization and deliberate practice.
Of course not everyone learns from playing dota but at least it's a focused experience that doesn't steal focus away like short form videos.
I agree with this. I guess you already believe they follow a bell curve.Then from your former comment you also believe it's worth it to lose many PhDs that don't contribute to also lose the few that do.
I guess the conflict is my value judgement that it's good to keep PhDs that don't contribute if it allows US to keep the ones that do contribute. I believe so for 2 reasons.
- Distinguishing between contributors and non contributors at scale is difficult.
- the value of research can be large from a few contributors.
Why wouldn't stem PhDs follow some bell curve of quality? I'm sure many PhDs that are leaving don't contribute but some of them do. I personally don't see a reason for it to be skewed for only PhDs which don't contribute to leave.
It's essentially an inline function with only 1 client. Can be a preference for inline readability and automatically enforces there are no other clients of the "function".
As someone who works in this space. A large org like Google often separates the feature work and counter abuse teams. The org structure leads to unintended feature consequences. It sucks when your trying to provide value to people and it's taken advantage of by bad actors.
For some games like dota 2 cheats only make them marginally better at the game but much more frustrating to play against. The most common cheats are map hacks and instant action scripts both of which can be useless without the game knowledge for correct play. But both of these cheats make playing against them frustrating but they wouldn't rise to the top.
It may be logically obvious but I don't think many people accept it and act with this in mind. Either due to emotionally not being able to accept it or because it's hard to apply to every decision.
Since I don't know their backgrounds and don't have any background working with video game company executives it's hard to tell which options are more likely.