Depends on what the things are. For things which you want to, or have a need to, interface with remotely, I can see a positive. The home automation aspect, HVAC, lights, security, locks, those all have value. If the "thing" accesses the internet to allow you to interface to it, that's pretty good. The opposite, when the thing becomes a browser, that's clearly proving to not be needed or even wanted.
While I agree with the premise of all of this, when it comes to modifying car software, who now maintains the liability? If a hobbyist were to modify something incorrectly and cause a malfunction of the car which in turn injured another, or damaged property, who is liable?
Surely it cannot be the automaker, they did not intend for that. Insurance companies are going to fight it, maintaining that unauthorized changes were made which would release their liability.
Inspecting auto software for problems is great, allowing hobbyists to tinker with their software seems problematic.
Insurance policies already cover this as "after-market modifications" (the terminology I've generally seen used already).
There really is no cause for concern; things that used to be purely mechanical are now electric. Any modifications made mechanically before could be equally disastrous.
Yes, software modifications are easier to hide, but that it is a price worth paying for the greater general freedom of everyone.
What happens if the user modifies the software, the modified software causes a malfunction, the user resets the software to the factory version, then takes it in to a shop while claiming they never modified the software in the first place?
> If a hobbyist were to modify something incorrectly and cause a malfunction of the car which in turn injured another, or damaged property, who is liable?
The hobbyist. Why would anyone else be liable for something a person did that then failed and caused harm?
> Insurance companies are going to fight it, maintaining that unauthorized changes were made which would release their liability.
The insurance company covers the car so you'd have to consult what their terms are in regards to modifications as plenty of people modify their cars today just not the software. I can't imagine a software change would be radically different to a hardware change in the insurance's eyes unless it's something incredible like an autopilot.
>The hobbyist. Why would anyone else be liable for something a person did that then failed and caused harm?
The hobbyist isn't the one with money. The manufacturer will be sued, and they usually settle because there is probably something they could have done that would have made the failure less likely, injury trials are bad press, and jury sympathy is always on the injured little guy's side.
This is how it plays out with physical products, I don't see why it would be any different with code.
That's not what happens if a hobbyist modifies e.g. the brakes, then the brakes break and the car crashes - if you modified the thing, you're responsible for the issues your modifications cause.
> in the US, getting a job as a barista or fast food is possible, but a horrendous waste of a college education.
Maybe. Not all college educations are created equal. Got a major in philosophy? You're not useful to the economy, there are no jobs and no one is wasting your education. Of course the example here is facetious, the point is this: If you have a college education/degree in something that is not marketable to the economy, the waste is not the economies fault, but that of whomever pursued that education.
I would posit that many businesses don't know the great value of a graduate with a good philosophy education. Critical thinking, clear writing, and persuasively advocating a position are all essential to business management.
I agree entirely. I majored in philosophy, as well as biology. I currently work in biotech.
The more useful of the two majors, even taking my career into account? Philosophy. Understanding the principles which govern the properties and flow of ideas/arguments/concepts is far more important than the particulars, which can be memorized and understood as needed.
The cliche is that philosophy teaches you how to think, and it's true. Of course, philosophy isn't the only way to learn how to think, but it's a good primer.
I agree that the educations aren't created equal, but consider what these kids were told going into college: a college degree = a good job.
The nuance of "the economy can't support liberal arts majors" didn't crop up with gusto until after the economy crashed, and isn't even true-- the economy can't support a bajillion physicists or electrical engineers either, nevermind that most people aren't cut out for it.
> The nuance of "the economy can't support liberal arts majors" didn't crop up with gusto until after the economy crashed
I'm not sure where you live/work/play, but I've been hearing this since I was in high school in the 90s. There was a strong push for us to get practical, applicable degrees - business, accounting, CS/IS, engineering, etc. unless one wanted to become a professor of liberal arts.
A philosophy major is not a poor financial instrument because it's not financial instrument at all. Education has aims other than making investors money.
As a practical matter, philosophy is typically studied by those who will go on to law school, a Masters in something employable, or as part of a minor or "core curriculum" alongside a trade.
In most of the liberal arts and humanities - particularly philosophy, a graduate from a reputable institution will have extremely sharp critical thinking and writing skills. A philosophy major's daily grind is very similar to proof-based math. Across the disciplines, people are mostly writing papers that argue positions. Particularly at top-tier institutions, those papers are held to a high standard for quality of argument, evidence, and style. It may not correspond directly to an efficient way to turn capital into more capital, but it's hardly a "waste."
I would love to believe tha is true, but whenever I hear modern philosiphers (Alain de Botton comes to mind), they seem to study other classical philosiphers rather than come up with their own ideas. Its like the diference between an author and someone who reads books.
In order to make any progress, you have to understand the ideas that come before you, lest you make the same mistakes. It's the same in STEM. That being said, the idea that there's no new philosophy is ludicrous. I recommend David Lewis as a very original, modern philosopher.
Sure, but a good author is someone who has read many books. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. (I admit that I don't know much of modern philosophers, but I find it hard to believe they are not making good use of those who came before.)
I really dislike this kind of judgement of non-STEM majors. I used to make these kinds of judgements myself. The problem is the quality of education in America. Outside of certain, well-defined technical fields our universities have largely become degree mills.
A high quality education in philosophy or English, makes for effective communicators with excellent critical thinking skills. Outside of the very best universities students don't get that kind of education.
A STEM major isn't necessarily the answer either. It's often a struggle for highly educated math and science majors to find work in their industry. Sure they may have a leg up on getting certain jobs outside their industry, but it's by no means easy going for them either.
"American students need to improve in math and science—but not because there's a surplus of jobs in those fields."
Fact of the matter is that, there are largely just fewer jobs to go around. Part of this is that the older generation is working longer, not vacating their positions. Some of it is efficiency gains from software and other modern technology have let companies do more with fewer people, leading to a smaller workforce requirement.
We're very quickly nearing a point where not everyone needs to work full time in order to support our population and in fact not everyone CAN work full time in productive work. As a planet we're going to have to make some serious societal and economic decisions.
> The problem is the quality of education in America.
That's quite a statement. By most standards, US has one of the best (but not the cheapest) education systems in the world. But don't worry, even in Europe, non-STEM majors, especially the likes of social studies, are pretty much worthless.
Simply said, what do such majors really give you that you couldn't learn by reading books? Abstract reasoning? Worse than most STEM. Understanding of life? Living life gives you that. Social skills? People with good social skills usually got them during their teens, whereas people with shitty social skills won't get them through a degree. Critical thinking? Well, given the state of the world and the quality of public discourse, it's not working.
I majored in philosophy, albeit with mechanical engineering, and I'd say that my philosophy education has been much more helpful for my consulting career. True, my ME degree got me the initial interview -- but almost everyone who interviewed me was very interested why I decided to pursue philosophy.
>the waste is not the economies fault, but that of whomever pursued that education.
I'm willing to place at least 75% of the blame on the recipient, but I try not to discount the previous 12+ years of "education is our greatest asset" propaganda targeted towards children.
Even for 18 year olds with an inclination to think it's all bullshit-- nobody will ever present you with an alternate viable path. It's always "You don't want to end up a loser right? Sign here..." and next thing you know the creditors are calling looking for their $X0,000.
Classic peer pressure techniques apparently count as sagely advice when coming from high school guidance counselors
> Even in less temperate locales I wonder if we really need to define our environment to within single degree Fahrenheit.
Hey, sure, tell that to everyone in the northern states, no need for heat right? I mean when it's 10°F outside you can just shut the windows and be nice and warm, right?
There isn't though, this calculation doesn't consider valuation of the home at sale time. What this considers is, how much could that money earn you in investments vs how much will you save in interest payments over the life of the loan.
What this does assume is that you'll live in the house long enough for the interest savings to catch up with investment gains.
> while making it illegal to rent out (buy?) property purely to rent it
Why? You're making the notion of landlords illegal? What purpose does this solve, what benefit is there? Why should I not be allowed to purchase a house and then place a tenant in it?
In many places the rental community is larger than the homeowner community, these houses would simply sit on the market, rather than have someone buy it and put a renter in it. How on earth can you justify making home rentals illegal?
Technically, wouldn't home prices just fall until they were affordable enough for the community to purchase them? I suppose they could just sit in the owners hands forever, but that seems unlikely. I would think that, after some amount of time, they would prefer to have liquid capital over no capital.
Not taking any side in this debate, but that makes some economic sense to me.
