> ChatGPT didn't ruin anything. Lazy students did.
This is a prime example of thinking exclusively along the lines of rugged individualism. It assigns all blame on the individual, whilst ignoring any systemic or collective causes.
It ignores the socio-economic realities of the students. Especially if they come from a challenged background. To them the important thing is getting the high paying job which represents a ticket out of the lower class, and if that can be optimized, it's a no brainer that they would take that route.
It ignores the fact that the actual credential paper is more important to recruiters than the knowledge gained though the program. Or even that networking and referrals has a much larger weight than raw skill in recruiting than we'd like to admit, from our meritocratic perception.
It ignores the fact that maybe the module itself is not that valuable? We're talking about the US here, and people literally pay out of pocket for education. And yet they cheat/skip it in a heartbeat. The only valid rationale is that there is no value there from an economics lens. They'd rather spend that time doing extracurricular activities that actually improve their chances of getting employed.
It ignores the fact that since the industrial revolution the education system has not evolved at all (merely adding a computer lab does not mean the system was reworked, it's the other way around, the new technology was adapted into the existing system).
The education system has flaws. The incentives in the job marketplace have flaws. There are many factors at play here, and simply arguing that "it's the student's fault" is the equivalent of an ostrich sticking his head in the sand.
Alternatively the "reader view" feature in Firefox can be used as the entire article is loaded in memory (as opposed to other websites where they'd load a preview till you agree to cookies / pay for a subscription)
I gave it a go, not to the video in the OP, but another one that caught my eye - the one about gatcha and korean gender wars. I got through the end and found out that it was actually a part 1, the second part being almost 2 hours. I'm low-key upset about this situation.
Pretty much this. A short video is a fairly strong indication that the author did his work and respects your time, while a long one is a fair indication of the opposite. I've come to recognize some red flags in longer videos, such as including unnecessary bloopers, reading very slowly, reading long and frequent definitions, going on tangents, and generally not synthesizing the information enough such that all the bits presented tie into the main topic.
I would lie if I said that I don't consume long form documentaries on Youtube. I do and there are some channels that I deeply enjoy. But for a while, especially since they removed the dislike button, I've become wary of discovering new channels. It's often hit or miss, and the overall time investment doesn't look justifiable in retrospect. For this exact reason, I've removed all my subscriptions, and disabled all recommendations. I mostly poll for channels that I remember had good content that was meaningful to me.
I remember a time when crossing the 10 minute mark was really stretching it on YouTube. Nowadays most videos hit the 1 hour mark... I'm not sure if this is what the market demands, or this is just Google nudging creators in this direction.
Apple is renowned for their seamless interoperation between their devices, yes, but there is also another angle - Apple always searches for the largest common denominator (amongst what ordinary people do) and refines that experience. Everyone needs to be able to share a photo, record a video, lookup a song, etc. The addressable market for iphone users that operate industrial equipment is minuscule. They wouldn't bother.
An easy solution for the VPN part would be Zerotier / Tailscale. IIRC Zerotier uses chacha20 for encryption which is faster than AES, especially for a power-strapped SBC.
As the article stated, sugar consumption was a method of coping (when he felt stressed or overwhelmed). If you consider that the source of that stress is chronic or from something constantly being put away, then that repeated regular use over the course of decades becomes quite a tough pattern to break, since it represents a fundamental element of what keeps you sane. In these cases, the sudden removal is comparable to living a nightmare.
So I beg to differ that it's not (always) that simple.
GrapheneOS runs the google play services as a containerized app instead of a system level app, allowing you to disable access as needed. The downside is that it's only available for pixel phones.
I want to point out that you can do a similar thing on reddit too. There's a setting for disabling recommended posts on the home tab. Combine that with unsubscribing to all subreddits (maybe except /r/nosurf) and you get a detoxified home tab.
I tried to do something similar with twitter (now known as X), but it doesn't seem to work.
I highly recommend the Unhook extension. It's highly customizable, and personally I have it set to remove all recommendations. Sometimes I also disable the comments.
It's been a year since I've used it, and I definitely see an improvement as the platform is no longer pushing content down to me, but at times I find myself frantically searching channels I used to watch, to see if there is a new video since I last checked. I only remember a dozen at most, way fewer than the ~100 channels I was subscribed to.
Overall an improvement, but I don't consider myself cured.
This is a prime example of thinking exclusively along the lines of rugged individualism. It assigns all blame on the individual, whilst ignoring any systemic or collective causes.
It ignores the socio-economic realities of the students. Especially if they come from a challenged background. To them the important thing is getting the high paying job which represents a ticket out of the lower class, and if that can be optimized, it's a no brainer that they would take that route.
It ignores the fact that the actual credential paper is more important to recruiters than the knowledge gained though the program. Or even that networking and referrals has a much larger weight than raw skill in recruiting than we'd like to admit, from our meritocratic perception.
It ignores the fact that maybe the module itself is not that valuable? We're talking about the US here, and people literally pay out of pocket for education. And yet they cheat/skip it in a heartbeat. The only valid rationale is that there is no value there from an economics lens. They'd rather spend that time doing extracurricular activities that actually improve their chances of getting employed.
It ignores the fact that since the industrial revolution the education system has not evolved at all (merely adding a computer lab does not mean the system was reworked, it's the other way around, the new technology was adapted into the existing system).
The education system has flaws. The incentives in the job marketplace have flaws. There are many factors at play here, and simply arguing that "it's the student's fault" is the equivalent of an ostrich sticking his head in the sand.