If it was fully disclosed that this was "gambling", then I might agree.
But it seems that it was more positioned as "a safe investment with okay returns and a lottery chance at winning above average returns". Gamblers don't need to know about FDIC insurance and the like.
There was shady goings on that wasn't clear to depositors -- what isn't clear is WHERE that shadiness was happening, but that doesn't mean they "got what was coming to them".
Such studies sometimes ask about the outlets; for some reason conservatives feel Fox news isn't the MSM, while CNN and MSNBC are.
Asked about their "non-MSM" outlet, suddenly it is VERY trustworthy.
And these stats hold for liberals as well; they feel their outlet isn't the "MSM", but that Fox is and is untrustworthy.
Since the job of news is now to sell ads and not tell the truth, a lot of "supporters" only hear what their side wants them to hear, and not the facts.
The real problem of course is that each party has different policies; but if we as citizens don't agree on the facts and problems facing us, then there is no way to evaluate the strength of the policies against the problems.
Even the "facts" are politicized. Government statistics are falsified or manipulated at the source. Then the media picks and chooses what to report so as to favor the view they want to push. Honest media outlets hold government accountable. I think the best thing for the average person to do is listen to a variety of sources, and compare the news to their own and their friends' experiences. If you're up for research then you can do that along with seeking out true journalists.
I think this isn't true; it might be that people might not read an eight-part expose on a topic, but they do resonate with many people, some of whom may even pay or choose to subscribe based on it.
To pick up your McD's analogy, I'm sure they did focus groups and test runs to gauge interest and build the product up. If memory serves, they did this in the context of many low-end buffets adding a salad bar and "healthier" alternatives becoming available. I think they added this option as popularity of salads started to decline. I'm sure many people bought them, but it wasn't profitable enough so they discontinued it, in favor of other healthy options.
Now, to pivot back to news, they used to be awash in print ads, both classified and throughout the copy pages, which subsidized their operations a great deal. There are lots of demand for news, but the challenge is how you pay for it. I think it would have been great if the big players (FB, Google) had set up revenue shares with legit outlets; but they don't want to share their $$ pie so we are all worse off.
The phrase "if it bleeds it ledes" hasn't been an industry cliche for 50+ years for no reason. Engagement numbers don't lie. Hyperbolic opinion pieces attract as many or more views as painstakingly researched journalism at a fraction of the price.
I understand your frustration, but how does the software manage students that are behind versus students that are way ahead?
Like I'd imagine this would be deeper learning for a kid that's ahead, where they can really deep-dive a topic and maybe do some more advanced concepts.
But I can understand it from the teacher's perspective too; They have 30 kids, no extra budget and few resources. They have 20 or so average kids, and a handful of stragglers and a handful of people out in front, and are trying to meet ALL of their needs. Any of those three groups could use up all the time on a specific topic, so you end up stealing some time from one to deal with the others. If there are good monitoring from EdTech software it can help, but lots of teachers are not super techie so things have to be approachable.
It's definitely a space with more nuance and certainly more potential.
As someone who has taught in formal and informal settings, the promise of EdTech was amazing, but the delivery has not really been that good.
To me, a lot of the companies in the space seem to be more concerned with how to maximize dollars sent to them and not as much about how things are improving or better with technology. Tech should be a tool to help the learning, it doesn't have to be each and every part, and I feel like the ultimate goal of at least some of the companies was to create an all-in-one solution for every problem.
It's disappointing. I'm sure the rationale at the time was that it was an under-powered and obsolete machine, but many schools in Ontario were far behind and having these machines go to other places would have been helpful.
But that might have meant software and support costs, and can't have that.
Pricing and packaging parts in a way that ensures its cheaper to buy a different phone is the opposite of a free market.
Breaking your screen or wearing out your battery shouldn't mean you have to replace both, but it does if you own a Samsung and want genuine Samsung parts.
Did this approach get disclosed when consumers bought the phones, or only when something happened?
For a service that needs to be available to the outside world, I'd say a VPS is often the better practical solution.
Many home ISPs don't allow hosting of E-mail (SMTP) or traffic through to 80/443 (HTTP/S), so you have to have something which does this. "Self-hosters" often explain their setups with a reverse proxy which ends up on a home server.
I say this as a big supporter of RaspPi and home devices in general; unless it's for something like Home Automation, it's easier and more reliable to just run it remotely.
If supply chain was the issue, surely they could have worked to create a more local source for things; but it seems like a flavour of corruption to use slower and inferior machines instead of trying to leverage the best of both.
My feeling from the article was that he worked outside the box, and THAT was simply unacceptable to the authorities, no matter how good the underlying technology was.
> My feeling from the article was that he worked outside the box, and THAT was simply unacceptable to the authorities, no matter how good the underlying technology was.
USSR had a planning economy, so they decided ahead what good and in which quantity must be produced in a coming five years. And then comes some genius and makes a computer better than planned. What should they do?
Something alike was with Setun[1], there was no place for Setun in 5-years plan.
Moreover I suspect that what will be included into the next plan was a big politics. No low engineer could change that. Centralization is evil.
>
USSR had a planning economy, so they decided ahead what good and in which quantity must be produced in a coming five years. And then comes some genius and makes a computer better than planned. What should they do?
They should do what most management textbooks tell you: adjust the planning to include this innovation in the plan.
It doesn't matter what the official regime is, as long as the decisions are made by a disconnected committee with no way for the periphery to steer, it's always shit.
But it seems that it was more positioned as "a safe investment with okay returns and a lottery chance at winning above average returns". Gamblers don't need to know about FDIC insurance and the like.
There was shady goings on that wasn't clear to depositors -- what isn't clear is WHERE that shadiness was happening, but that doesn't mean they "got what was coming to them".