It took me a while to understand why there was such a tricky character as semicolon in the first unit. On a Swedish keyboard, I think it's equivalent to typing the < key on a US keyboard (and the left shift key on a Swedish keyboard is tiny).
True. If I remember Hattie correctly, he argues something akin to that reducing class sizes is mostly a political move (it's certainly not research based) — and after spending huge amounts of money on that — there is no political incentive to spend at least as much on retraining teachers.
Also, if some of the money had been spent on professional development instead of reducing class sizes in the first place, his research shows that the effect of that on student achievement had been much, much higher.
By conventional means, do you mean reading glasses? Observing people needing/using them, to me it seems like a hassle and definitely not a solution that most are satisfied with.
The video mentions both the GPS and speedometer as potential targets for this technology. Giving it some thought and being close to the age where I might benefit from this, it isn't such a bad idea after all.
Obviously I can't speak for other bespectacled folk, but I wouldn't call them a huge hassle. I put them on in the morning, and take them off at night. Once in a while I clean them. That's about the extent of my interaction with them.
(Although I'm short-sighted, so the arguments above don't apply to me anyway.)
While I've seen my dad struggle with reading glasses (and now bifocals) after not needing to correct his vision for the first 40+ years of his life, I've had mostly the same experience you describe for the last 20 years (thanks to inheriting my vision problems from my mom's side). However, in the last couple of years I've started taking my glasses off if I am reading for long periods of time, because my distance vision is getting bad enough that the correction is making the closer text slightly more difficult to read than it is without the lenses. Eventually, this might also lead to needing bifocals myself, despite the fact that I have no problems reading very small text within arms-length without glasses.
Essentially, I'm getting close to doing the opposite of what most people do with reading glasses. For now, I do most minor reading tasks and my work with my glasses on, but for lengthy reading I take them off. Over time, I'm sure, I'll end up taking them off (or looking below my glasses) for almost every reading task, and eventually for work as well.
In the end, though, I don't think the technology will be likely to really solve the issue for me, except to correct a few displays for my corrected vision. I have to pin most of my hopes, at the moment, on improvements in surgery and eventually being able to afford the surgery.
You're in for some future fun, then. I'm "Mr. Magoo" myopic, but in my late 40s the presbyopia fairy dropped in for an extended visit (and still hasn't indicated any desire to go home). So I have different needs for distance vision, for "conversational distance", for monitor distance and for the reading of tiny things, and there are gaps into which things may fall a well. Depending upon which field of range you're talking about (and which eye) I require correction somewhere between +3 and -6 dioptres. It is definitely a hassle, and quite unlike my carefree four-eyed youth.
For those who are not familiar with CC — and since most of the comments so far refer to speech-to-text — CC is more than regular subtitles.
CC often displays contextual information such as what kind of music is played and how it's played (soft, intense, etc.), sounds that are important to the scene, the names of out of view character who are speaking, etc.
I think some of the arguments in the video depend much on how tightly invention is defined.
Personally, I'd say that even if all components on a circuit board were already individually invented by someone else, as well as the process of combining them, a unique result would likely still be an invention in my eyes.
I'd also say that an improvement to an existing product very well could be novel enough to call it an invention (where that line should be drawn is quite subjective though.)
Furthermore, I'd argue that piecing together an already existing product through a novel process also could be classified as an invention. For me, it might even be enough to use an existing design in a new way or new field.
Thus, I don't think finding one preceding design is a good method in deciding that a later design isn't an invention. Which is not meant to imply that all Apple products are their inventions, just that sometimes the addition of garlic and cilantro (per the video) is novel enough.
It certainly is. Not that I think it is a derivative but to some extent it is what Douglas Rushkoff argues in his book Program or Be Programmed (2010):
"In a digital age, we must learn how to make the software, or risk becoming the software. It is not too difficult or too late to learn the code behind the things we use — or at least to understand that there is code behind their interfaces. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of those who do the programming, the people paying them, or even the technology itself."
I don't agree with everything in the book but it's nevertheless a great read.