61–70 of 76 posts
> Offering a glimpse into the not-too-distant future, [Joseph Sweeney] describes a day when... artificial-intelligence system will build the app... Coding might then be nearly obsolete It's always cute to hear school administrators (or any non-technical policy types) predict the future based upon superficial understanding of the underlying science and technology. Code synthesis for fully specified and very simple pro…
I think this push for coding thing is great. I see being able to code as a thing like literacy, either you have it or you don't, and, if you don't have it, then you are going to be held back and not reach your own potential. In the workplace I see a lot of people using 1990's tools like Excel to create 'reports' of some sort, where the data in them is as good as dead. Meanwhile, those of us that can do a database joi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All this program is doing is attempting to give exposure to programming to young students who may not otherwise have an opportunity to do so. No matter how naturally gifted a student may be, the tools to learn and grow have to be put within their reach in the first place. The criticism this article is levying is how it is threatening to produce code monkeys instead of well-rounded software engineers. But that is beca…
Disregarding your elitist stance comment (and your other race assertions -- SERIOUSLY?), which I thought were poor and totally mischaracterized what I wrote, I think that you are choosing to discard a lot of what past years have taught us about the American education system. Where you see "attempting to give exposure to programming" I see students being PUSHED by the environment (parents, teachers, peers) into doing…
As for exposure to programming: You say it's everywhere and we don't need it in school at all? Would you say that to some poor kid who doesn't have the environment at home that fosters self-teaching, or maybe even a computer at all? You do realize that some of these kids literally struggle to have breakfast each morning and here you are hand waving access to computing resources and educational material as trivial...
> Is it the lack of fresh, organic food in inner-cities? Ha ha ha ha you think people are held back because their food isn't organic? Ha ha ha ha ha!
I have lived in a food desert, it sucks and seriously affects what meals you have. Organic is a bit of a red-herring here IMO.
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have lived in a food desert, it sucks and seriously affects what meals you have. Organic is a bit of a red-herring here IMO.
> Organic is a bit of a red-herring here IMO. Why?
'Organic' food is a middle class indulgence and a fashion.
Their biggest problem is not that they don't have a a Whole Foods. You're ignorant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Organic is a bit of a red-herring here IMO. Why?
Mate there is no scientific consensus that organic is more nutritional than non-organic. And there is no scientific consensus the the pesticides are harmful in the levels in which they appear. 'Organic' food is a middle class indulgence and a fashion. Their biggest problem is not that they don't have a a Whole Foods. You're ignorant.
Thanks for the ad-hominen - it really advances your position and lends credibility to your argument.
> Mate there is no scientific consensus that organic is more nutritional than non-organic.
By moving the goalposts this way, you have ensured both that your statement is technically accurate and that it is irrelevant to this discussion.
Needless to say (and it has been rehashed over and over), nothing in the world enjoys scientific consensus. Not climate change, not vaccination efficacy. Nevertheless, reasonable people make decisions based in part on positions that overwhelm, with solid evidence, the contrary position.
Organic food is not designed to be more nutritious, although it often is (at least according to the EU study which came out this month and which is by far the largest and most rigorous study on the matter - http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2016/02/15/more-omega-3...). It is designed to be less toxic, not only for the consumer but for the farm workers and the land.
There is overwhelming evidence that organic farming achieves these goals.
The one major study (the Stanford study, linked above) which deviates from this position is quite controversial (for the reasons I have also linked above). On the other hand, hundreds of studies around the world have shown that organic farming is effective. Here's one from two weeks ago:
http://blog.journals.cambridge.org/2016/02/16/health-benefit...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have lived in a food desert, it sucks and seriously affects what meals you have. Organic is a bit of a red-herring here IMO.
> Organic is a bit of a red-herring here IMO. Why?
> Is it the lack of fresh, organic food in inner-cities? Ha ha ha ha you think people are held back because their food isn't organic? Ha ha ha ha ha!
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11198076 and marked it off-topic.
Which is much higher than most Americans. You'd be in your tech ghetto making more than your friends who went to a 4 year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me rephrase that for you: "While fresh food might be a factor, conventionally grown food would be approximately as nutritious as organic."
Why do you say this? Organic food has serious, measurable benefits. The differences between organic and orthodox varies across food items, of course, but for some it is a very serious difference. http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php I surmise that your contention is based on the Stanford study? Have you ever actually read the study yourself? Do you realize that its methodology is widely regarded as fundamentally f…