Porting lineage to new hardware mostly includes development teams that have nothing to do with Google.. Convincing no one to leave the thin veneer of mediocre code and "free" storage is a game that is harder to play than Apple makes it look with OsX.
It sounds to me like Graphene will have a large gap of access to fixes compared to the special vendors.. I wont be upgrading to a newer Pixel until I see a year or two of this working out and I think that is less likely than a descent.
Even if the collapse is a fuzzy decades one I think it would also have an ever increasing probability of the remainder in under an hour as something entirely forgotten fails.
It's similar to their optimization of the web for their customers. To remain indexed you have to jump through all their hoops which means you derive income and therefore are at least potentially an advertiser.
I don't see how that differs materially from a junk yard.. Cars with popular parts stay on the sorting floor at an urban yard, others go quickly or slowly toward the appropriate lower value reclaim tiers.
In my city there is an absolutely massive pick-your-own-parts yard. I believe they get most of their vehicles from the state-owned insurance company after the insurance company is done harvesting parts from write offs (which they do sell as a side-revenue stream). The pick-a-part facility is cleverly located next door to a steel mill. When a vehicle is done at the part facility it gets stripped and recycled. They don’t need to get shipped, they just pick them up with a forklift and move them over to the lot next door.
That's not really different than a human and the context they need? I'd think it would come down to how frequently such exercises exist in its training, and how much they show modifications to responses. Given that the most common place for them is probably offline versions of classes, I'd imagine its weaker than in other areas but maybe still has a lot..
Maybe lower education should just have a different schedule with other activity years? I'm not particularly impressed with the average American's ability to be a positive element of society and despite all the problems, I think liberal arts students are probably better than the rest when considered over their lifetime. But why should each individual take loans to have the critical thinking to vote in the interest of larger institutions?
Does liberal arts teach critical thinking? Do students who study liberal arts vs a mathematics/engineering show greater improvements on critical thinking tests?
I get the idea we want a more educated population that can better make decisions. But the biggest way the populace makes poor decisions is they are economically illiterate, and they don't really understand how the government works. We should probably spend more time teaching this in high school and a typical degree spends very little time teaching these subjects.
The populace making poor decisions isn't just economically illiterate, they are increasingly fundamentally illiterate. Teaching economic literacy in school won't matter one bit when an increasing number of people are graduating unable to read even at a basic level.
But in order to solve this problem you would have to overhaul our educational system and right now we have a party invested in destroying it so that it produces voters more aligned with their groupthink.
If you're arguing we should improve schools to increase rates of numeracy and literacy than I'm in 100% agreement. But I thought we were talking about liberal arts degrees.
While there are a variety of different interest groups that have influenced current federal government education policy, most of them don't seem to be trying destroy it just for the sake of destruction. Instead the policy seems to be based more on the perception that the education system has been co-opted and corrupted to indoctrinate students with values and political philosophies that conservative or right-wing politicians find abhorrent. They see this as so damaging to society that it would be better to have no educational system at all rather than what we have now. I don't agree with this perception or their actions, but there is at least a kernel of truth to their viewpoint. In a politically diverse nation if we want to maintain broad based support for higher education then we need to find a way to keep universities at least somewhat politically neutral.
Many groups that want to destroy things make up excuses for why it is good. Even Adolf Hitler said the Jews were attacking Germany and he was just acting in self-defense. So the mere existence of an excuse doesn't mean very much.
I can agree with that. That's very basic and uncontroversial. I asked because terms like "economic literacy" often masquerade "thinks about economics the way I want them to". For example, some people would say that you must believe things like "financial markets are good" or else you're economically illiterate.
But supply and demand happen in every economy, even those without money and even post-scarcity sci-fi. And unintended consequences are just a thing everywhere.
Unless "unintended consequences" was shorthand for "if you hurt stock market investors that's bad for the country", of course.
