It's worth noting that it won't be as simple as plugging in Swarms' payload - there will be singificant necessary engineering work to validate the RF and power characteristics of the integration.
That's quite a nice balance between "auto import and connect everything, dven the stuff you don't want e.g Terraform" and "set it all up yourself".
I'd like to add to that suggestion, let me dis/allow resources from thr automated import with a grep patterm e.g. aws.iam* would allow only iam policies into the import. Negations and such are logical extensions.
It's not compulsory, but it's available at GCSE and A Level; also in General Knowledge A Level I think.
Granted they have a bit of a reputation for being 'lesser' subjects. I don't really agree that everyone needs to be taught this though, most Britons don't have to 'do taxes', and aren't running companies. It should probably form a part of trades' apprenticeship training (and for all I know it does) due to the higher prevalence of self-employment (and thus running a business, and self-assessing tax even if not incorporated).
No accounting in the French general high school curriculum. And I can’t see it being introduced (it would be seen as an unacceptable intrusion of capitalism in education).
Hi there! That's awesome, would love to keep the conversation going :)
I touched on this in another thread slightly, but the short answer is that we support a 'setup' directive where the user can populate data into the environment.
Most of our current users have a common "reploy" db that they dump into the environment on each new run. And an even simpler approach is just pointing all of your environments at a single db.
Any thoughts there? What have your experiences been like?
> It will make your evaluation a game where the student challenge is not understanding the concept of the class, but instead, understanding the rules of the various test you put in place.
I agree with most of what you have to say, however you're arguing for replacing one 'game' with another. If the goal is not to understand the grading engine then by the same logic the goal is to understand what appeals to whom is marking it.
I do agree that you are replacing one subjectivity (the tests and tools rules) with another (the teacher view of what is a good code).
But the idea is that a teacher is not as strict as a tool and is not here to punish student, but to instead grade them fairly in order for them to see what they can improve, and provide assistance for them to improve on those point. Well at least in theory, its not that easy to do :) .
The main reason why I disliked automated grading was that, a lot of time, I could see that a student almost got the right answer, but either didn't have the time to finish, or made some small mistakes. A automated tool would have given him 0, the same grade that a student who failed to understand anything or didn't work would have had, which I see has highly unfair. He cannot have all the point, but he should have some.
Not valuing the work of students is the quickest way I found to demoralize student and ultimately have them fail the class. And this is the opposite of what a teacher should strive for.
That's exactly the point. There is more subjectivity and nuance, and the person marking it is forced to engage in a kind of dialog with the actual code and see it for itself instead of relying on some limited objective heuristic which has no capacity to understand the student and what the student is misunderstanding.
Interesting work I'm sure.