|
Seems like "don't fly into power lines" should be a basic function of all drones.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:You still have the whole hardware angle to contend with though and I doubt Mr. Analog-only would be okay with this when it seems like his gripe was Chromebooks at large. I think his primarily complaint was the seemingly unrestricted access to Youtube (which seems like more of a configuration issue, to be fair) and the uploading of all data to Google in the US, not the devices themselves. That was also his main reason for avoiding smartphones, because it is unrealistically hard to have a modern smartphone today without uploading something to various untrustworthy cloud providers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
withak posted:Seems like "don't fly into power lines" should be a basic function of all drones. That's the next priority right after the engineers solve the "don't decapitate drivers" function of self-driving cars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I think his primarily complaint was the seemingly unrestricted access to Youtube (which seems like more of a configuration issue, to be fair) and the uploading of all data to Google in the US, not the devices themselves. That was also his main reason for avoiding smartphones, because it is unrealistically hard to have a modern smartphone today without uploading something to various untrustworthy cloud providers. To be fair, you specifically posted in the last page that Chromebooks are or should be illegal. KozmoNaut posted:
So, ignoring software - which has privacy minded solutions available - what is the legally safe hardware platform of choice that doesn't do data harvesting to America or some other foreign country that is feasible to teach a 10 year old and that most parents can wrap their head around? Like even windows 10/11 and Mac harvests the poo poo out of your usage. You can get flat Ubuntu / openSUSE laptops or something and have a relatively begign OS kernel, but I guarantee you if a kid takes it home to try and have his parents help with homework like 95% of them aren't going to know how to deal with the Linux Jank Factor, on top of it having security issues from the direction of giving kids a much more open platform with less ingrained parental controls. DeathSandwich fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Sep 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
withak posted:Seems like "don't fly into power lines" should be a basic function of all drones. Not easy when your drones' primary method of navigation is the cheapest and lightest 720p web camera money can buy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
The future we thought we'd get as kids What we got
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Doggles posted:That's the next priority right after the engineers solve the "don't decapitate drivers" function of self-driving cars. Feature, not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:The future we thought we'd get as kids
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
Let me have my nostalgia
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
We're gonna finally get PG&E to bury powerlines in California because an executive blew his bonus and a drone delivery startup and he really needs it to work out
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:The future we thought we'd get as kids I was expecting the polygon Tesla truck or whatever that was
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I was expecting the polygon Tesla truck or whatever that was No, that one doesn't fly. It...*checks notes*...swims? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1575508498430820352
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
Doggles posted:No, that one doesn't fly. It...*checks notes*...swims? Are they adding a loving propeller because how the gently caress does he think it’s gonna move or steer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
Doggles posted:No, that one doesn't fly. It...*checks notes*...swims? https://twitter.com/waDNR/status/1575541070427193350?s=20&t=FMVXKEzmQyQy8cUKRr7vIw
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
Doggles posted:No, that one doesn't fly. It...*checks notes*...swims? Yeah, maybe, but you won't be able to unlock it or deploy the pontoons if your internet connection is sketchy and/or you need a software update so probably you get to watch your state of the art polygon mobile sink into a river.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
Doggles posted:No, that one doesn't fly. It...*checks notes*...swims? Key word: "Briefly"
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
Just about any car will briefly serve as a boat.BiggerBoat posted:Yeah, maybe, but you won't be able to unlock it or deploy the pontoons if your internet connection is sketchy and/or you need a software update so probably you get to watch your state of the art polygon mobile sink into a river. Then you find out the 5G antennae is located in a part of the truck that isn't waterproofed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
Whoops! Looks like you didn't subscribe to the $99/month "Full Self-Floating Mode" plan, so no buoyancy for you. Oh and the water damage is not covered by warranty because you didn't subscribe to the $199/month "Full Warranty Mode" plan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:So, ignoring software - which has privacy minded solutions available - what is the legally safe hardware platform of choice that doesn't do data harvesting to America or some other foreign country that is feasible to teach a 10 year old and that most parents can wrap their head around? Like even windows 10/11 and Mac harvests the poo poo out of your usage. That is not for me to design nor implement. Similarly skilled and motivated people as those who designed the Swedish solution I linked, will be able to implement a proper solution, or at least provide at configuration of Windows 10/11 that doesn't automatically exfiltrate PII.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Interestingly, the US spends more money on education per primary school student than Denmark. Yeah, the biggest issue for American schools isn't the total amount of finding, it's the dumb way we allocate it (so rich communities' high schools have football stadiums, poor ones don't have enough desks) and the various obstacles students face outside of school (poverty, etc).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Yeah, the biggest issue for American schools isn't the total amount of finding, it's the dumb way we allocate it (so rich communities' high schools have football stadiums, poor ones don't have enough desks) and the various obstacles students face outside of school (poverty, etc). This is only true in a few states. In many states, there isn't a meaningful funding gap ($/student) between rich and poor school districts. I was shocked when I learned this--it really runs counter to a lot of narratives I have heard. See the plot on page 6 of this report: https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FundingGapReport_2018_FINAL.pdf I think maybe the way to reconcile your narrative with the data is that it is more costly to educate poor students than it is to educate rich students. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Sep 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This is only true in a few states. In many states, there isn't a meaningful funding gap ($/student) between rich and poor school districts. I was shocked when I learned this--it really runs counter to a lot of narratives I have heard. I'm not reading that whole thing but the general trend is local property tax funds schools. Everything else is redistributed. So by definition places with more expensive houses receive more school funding. It's baked into how most states do this, then the poorer districts fight for the scraps to make up that gap. It's not a good system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This is only true in a few states. In many states, there isn't a meaningful funding gap ($/student) between rich and poor school districts. I was shocked when I learned this--it really runs counter to a lot of narratives I have heard. Literally the study you posted: quote:Across the country, the highest poverty districts receive about quote:Nationally, funding inequities continue to be large. The quote:Conclusion "Few" and "many" doing a lot of work for you here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 23:40
|
|
|
According to the plot in page 6 of that source, in ~2/3rds of US states, poor school districts receive MORE money per student than rich districts. This deepens the puzzle, and runs counter to very common narratives. I think you need to address that. Maybe there is something wrong with the source--that's part of the reason why I posted it in this thread. Maybe someone can debunk the source. And maybe a way to reconcile that data with the common narrative is that educating poor students is necessarily more costly than rich students. Motronic posted:I'm not reading that whole thing but the general trend is local property tax funds schools. Everything else is redistributed. So by definition places with more expensive houses receive more school funding. It's baked into how most states do this, then the poorer districts fight for the scraps to make up that gap. Yeah, but it looks like in the majority of states, the state government provides enough funds to make up the difference. I agree that it isn't the best system. More money should be spent on poor students vs. rich students. But the narrative that poor schools have no funding is not quite true. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Sep 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:And maybe a way to reconcile that data with the common narrative is that educating poor students is necessarily more costly than rich students. Why wouldn't it be? Less parental involvement, food insecurity that should be made up as an educational matter by the schools in the course of preparing students to learn, more special education needs, etc. Growing up poor is hard. Parents need to work proportionally more hours and worse hours to keep kids housed/clothed/fed and therefore are less available. The parents are also less likely to have achieved higer education or even meaningfully participated in the level of education their children are currently receiving making it harder for them to help (cycle of poverty), etc. Expecting similar outcomes to wealthier districts without putting in the time and money is ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:No different from someone getting exmatriculated. Lifecycle is largely automated, once someone leaves their accounts get deactivated, and after a while they get deleted. Ownerless data gets removed. There isn't really any other way to do it when you churn through thousands of students each year. Your backups sound fancy. I'm used to whole database ones where you would revert everything to an old state instead of being set up to easily cherry pick records (+ if the current server caught fire and you have none of it, how do you identify students that were right-erase'ed between the most recent backup and now?) silence_kit posted:Maybe there is something wrong with the source--that's part of the reason why I posted it in this thread. Maybe someone can debunk the source. And maybe a way to reconcile that data with the common narrative is that educating poor students is necessarily more costly than rich students.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Why wouldn't it be? Less parental involvement, food insecurity that should be made up as an educational matter by the schools in the course of preparing students to learn, more special education needs, etc. Growing up poor is hard. Parents need to work proportionally more hours and worse hours to keep kids housed/clothed/fed and therefore are less available. The parents are also less likely to have achieved higer education or even meaningfully participated in the level of education their children are currently receiving making it harder for them to help (cycle of poverty), etc. Yeah, I agree. But that's not the argument which is usually presented. Instead of making the case FOR a 'reverse' funding disparity, usually the funding disparity is exaggerated. In most states, it looks like the disparity (rich school districts get more $/student than poor ones) isn't even true, a fact which I found to be extremely shocking. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Oct 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:04
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:In most states, it looks like the disparity (rich school districts get more $/student than poor ones) isn't even true, a fact which I found to be extremely shocking. Did they bury this conclusion somewhere? Because that's not what I got from skimming it. Jaxyon seems to have covered this with actual quotes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Did they bury this conclusion somewhere? Because that's not what I got from skimming it. Jaxyon seems to have covered this with actual quotes. Open the .pdf and turn to page 6. There is a giant plot showing that 2/3rds of US states spend a little bit more money ($/student) on poor students than rich students. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Oct 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:According to the plot in page 6 of that source, in ~2/3rds of US states, poor school districts receive MORE money per student than rich districts. This deepens the puzzle, and runs counter to very common narratives. I think you need to address that. I can only speak for NJ, but the NJEA is a teacher's union that's actually a much stronger force than most teachers unions, so school funding isn't utterly neglected at the state level. A lot of the increased funds for lower income areas are to try to remediate things that have just been left to rot previously, and there's nothing more expensive than poverty (see: Vimes et al). For all its many faults, education in NJ is actually pretty good comparatively.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Open the .pdf and turn to page 6. There is a giant plot showing that 2/3rds of US states spend a little bit more money ($/student) on poor students than rich students. Yeah that's where you're going to find the quotes I posted here, which you didn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Open the .pdf and turn to page 6. There is a giant plot showing that 2/3rds of US states spend a little bit more money ($/student) on poor students than rich students. Okay......to make it very clear, I'm responding to: silence_kit posted:In most states, it looks like the disparity (rich school districts get more $/student than poor ones) isn't even true, a fact which I found to be extremely shocking. And the very first sentence of page 6 is: quote:Across the country, the highest poverty districts receive about At the same time, this entire page is only talking about the relative funding of districts they have identified as being in poverty. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all public schools. Different states do different levels of correcting this disparity. If you want the worst examples just look southeast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Okay......to make it very clear, I'm responding to: You correctly identified earlier that in the US system of government, school funding is mainly provided at the local and state level. So it makes a lot more sense to look at it from a state level, instead of a national level. What e.g. New York does to address school funding has very little to do with the school funding situation in Georgia. The organization which put out that article is very much for improving education equality and outcomes in the US. Obviously they aren't going to lead off with: "we live in a world where two-thirds of the states spend more $ on poor students than rich students." They prefer to focus on that figure of merit after adjusting it for 'additional student need'. Motronic posted:Different states do different levels of correcting this disparity. If you want the worst examples just look southeast. Interestingly, that source suggests that the three states with the worst funding disparity are 1) Illinois, 2) Missouri (ok maybe not that interesting), 3) New York. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Oct 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
The overall "Across the country, the highest poverty districts receive about $1,000, or 7 percent, less per pupil in state and local funding than the lowest poverty districts" conclusion doesn't really get talked about in the rest of the document as far as I can tell. My best guess is that it's coming from merging all districts together without regard for which state their from. That is maybe meaningful, but also maybe not depending on whether district sizes are comparable between states. (i.e. if Illinois's districts are smaller than normal, that will increase that disparity number without changing any per-student funding. On the other hand, if they're unusually big, it will decrease the disparity number). Grouping per state, they have most states either neutral or spending more per student in poor schools:  Again, that doesn't necessarily actually mean anything in general because states definitely aren't equal population and their district sizes aren't necessarily equal either. Illinois being crap means more in terms of actual people's experience than all of the low population plains states being good/neutral. e.g. if you waved a magic want and cut Utah into twenty states while keeping everything else the same, this figure would look better but you haven't actually changed anything for actual people. And the reverse for cutting Illinois apart. It does make some sense for the reports stated purpose, which isn't measuring school funding vs poverty in the US as a whole, it's aimed at state lawmakers/advocates where stuff like "Our state in particular is terrible and we should fix that" is useful Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Oct 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
7% funding difference between the richest and poorest districts doesn’t seem like much, and surely isn’t enough to affect the outcomes that much
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
Yeah, I was shocked when I read that too. That number is pretty far from the common narrative here w.r.t. school funding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:7% funding difference between the richest and poorest districts doesn’t seem like much, and surely isn’t enough to affect the outcomes that much silence_kit posted:Yeah, I was shocked when I read that too. That number is pretty far from the common narrative here w.r.t. school funding. It's actually quite a significant difference. I'm guessing neither of you have school age kids, so you might not have a reference point to understand. The poor districts are more often going to have more families who: - are less able to volunteer adult time to help out at school activities - are less able to donate money for school supplies, field trips, school activities - are less able to help their children with homework as the classes become more advanced - are less able to provide connections with the monied interests of the local community to provide large scale donations to the school - have kids more often providing work to support the family rather than being able to focus on school work (either through working at the parent's business, working a job, doing more house chores, caring for younger siblings, etc.) So in order to bring a poorer district into better parity with the richest districts, you'll find yourself seeing them as more equals with poorer schools receiving more funding than rich schools, federally/state/locally. Poorer school districts need to hire more tutors and outside of class assistance (both for students and the school) than the richer districts, because the richer districts use non-federal and non-state funding to support those things and/or have parents who can do it themselves, being frequently higher educated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
In America this would be solved by a good guy with a gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 01:50
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:In America this would be solved by a good guy with a gun. Ahem, https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1461804149373382665 ... though it is admittedly not at the level of a Dahir Insaat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:7% funding difference between the richest and poorest districts doesn’t seem like much, and surely isn’t enough to affect the outcomes that much 7% funding difference (about $1000, they say,per student) is significant. In a school of 500 students that is half a million dollars. That is the salary for 5~8 teachers. That could have a huge impact on student-teacher ratios. Or, that could fund an art or music program for a year. Or an after school program that gives students a safe and supportive place to study and play rather than returning home probably alone or hangin out on the street. 7% doesn't seem like it would be a lot, but when most schools are running on completely slashed budgets as it is, it could make a huge difference. Tuxedo Gin fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Oct 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 02:23
|
|
