I'd like to see the department of education put out a list of skills that are needed and for what purpose, or end goal. There needs to be some grand vision, perhaps to unify the country like the moon landing did. Clinton wants people to instantiate jobs by focusing on alternative energy projects. Mostly I just see this desire for jobs, schooling, and a few other things as a means to keep people busy and to fit the mold or dream of a finely balanced social, psychological, utopia.
And what does education policy have to do with education?
It seems very common today for people to form opinions and make decisions about very specific things, but base them entirely on generalizations. How would the Department of Education know what skills and knowledge are necessary for a specific job function better than the actual people who require the work? This mindset is the same one that leads to the same presumptions about the necessity of college that the article is challenging.
We don't need a system unified around a consistent vision. We need the exact opposite of that: less universal systems, more focus on the particulars of every situation by the people who are actually involved.
So do those 8 machines and the code on it represent the system before or after the Wamu merger, or something in between? I've heard many of these banks such as Citigroup have something like 13 different databases or systems, many of which duplicate functionality.
Do articles like this always emerge at a certain point in the boom bust cycle or tied to politics? Because it seems like right now the societal "noise" has peaked, and the 3/4 populace needs a refresher.
I don't think you can necessarily verbally articulate some goals. Someone like Dave Letterman may have had a vision as he watched baseball on a black and white TV, and then Johnny Carson. But presumably it's taken him a lifetime to get close to what he had in mind.
You don't just take a kid and say "these are the heuristics you need. It's clear this is what you want to achieve, so these are the ingredients. Diverge from this at your own peril."
It might work if you want to recycle the existing societal structures and keep them in perpetuity as is. I suppose that's perfectly reasonable. You'll be excluding a hell of a lot of innovation though.
I still think that falls under "(a) Ask ourselves what we’re trying to achieve". The author may not go deeply into it but I am relatively confident the author would agree with the statement that that step itself could turn out to be a challenge; some of the other lettered steps strongly suggest the author believes that, (g) in particular.
That quote or statement just shows that an individual living a "thug life" or succumbing to the tremendous peer pressure of youth basically is completely out of touch with the larger mechanics at play, such as congressional decisions and corporatocracy.
"One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country."
That's a quote dug up from a (spam?) comment, article or forwarding at reddit.
I agree about the manipulation and control terminology, to a point. Perhaps some people consider that "smarts" but mostly I reserve "smarts" to be a term for people sort of half way in and half way out of the system. It's a compromise of sorts to be nimble and not get run over. The cumulative effect of that might still be bad, though.
I thought it was pretty much determined that most employees just need a minimum amount of salary met, at which point they're fine. Kind of like maintaining a lawn or pool; don't add a stressor by cutting things so close to the limit, but rather keep things plush, so there are no issues.
The combat soldier takes a calculated risk, and is there to assist because not doing so would be too powerful of a demoralizing force and fill themselves with regret. People leap into action at those moments because the alternative is incomprehensibly unacceptable.
I don't think it's fear so much as perceiving a particular conception of simple as bland. It would be a sign of failure to demote oneself to that, and secondly it does not jive with the concept of a long and difficult journey.
Things can be outwardly simple and have a complex underbelly, or vice versa, or some other mix. Anyway, I think this article is tied up with passion because if you lose it, fail to renew it, or actively destroy it, too much resistance develops to proceed.
I've wondered this before but basically programming gives you this illusion that you can change the world, to the point of self assembling systems and new transportation and construction possibilities. Perhaps it's just an illusion. Or maybe we'll look back in a few decades and think how majorly held back innovation has become, to protect some notion of corporate interest.
It's interesting to consider that entire societies have been built around these concepts. Usually when I see the Implicature thing that has been mentioned here, I often question whether the exact opposite (or something else all together) should be considered first; from there, you can think about whether everyone might be right.
Similarly, with those maxims about communication it's as if everyone is striving for a genuine meaning. However, if you take things to their limit there is nihilism everywhere.
The aliens, asper people, and 3/4's of everyone could just be unaware but also just rejecting the conventional notions of conversation.