You can be an Oracle and audit your customers and develop that adversarial relationship. The idea is that that sort of thing makes you rot in the long run.
Pretty poorly actually, people avoid Oracle products like the plague. Nobody is buying a JVM from Oracle or buying their DB - they're using open source solutions that are both free and provide more features.
They have a lot of inerita, but that's it. If you're in Greenfield development, there is a close to 0% chance you will choose Oracle as your RDBMS.
Hey, personally I agree. Why would I ever go with Oracle.
But that's A) me personally and B) me in Cloud/Startup type companies, so of course we don't got with Oracle.
But like you mentioned, inertia. So my previous gigs that were large multi-national of course were all Oracle. And they were all huge and had zero reason to not just buy the Oracle tax. Which is why Oracle is going strong.
Despite all the rage, Oracle can still survive quite some time on running boring things like I don't know, many large banks and other boring old businesses. Which of those is really gonna go "AWS Aurora MySQL" when the have had an in-house "Oracle Exadata" run their entire business operation "just fine" for longer than those Cloud providers have even be around?
I am sure everyone making shareware in the early 1990's would have loved to spy on people to know how many used their software for free (and have a way to spam those users to try to sell more licenses), but they couldn't and just did without that.
Curve Pay is a viable option last I checked. I am unaware of any payment options on Amex UK app. Amex expects you to link your card with Google Wallet.
Exactly, and I hope we keep track of all fridge purchases with biometrics from customers (and as thus, should not be able to order from online). That better be hooked up to an API that the cops can query at any time.
Ask a parent! Kids can be very wary of attempts to "shape" them. Of course they're not going to know the word propaganda, but the instinct to detect manipulation (and react negatively to it) goes deep.
Indeed. Also, small kids are excellent bullshit detectors. They can tell when they're being given non-sequiturs, or explanations are inconsistent, and they (rightfully) see this as problem and are confused when such things come from sources they trust (e.g. parents).
I am always fascinated by this degree of assurance and absolute lack of scepticism.
In what way, do you think, a show can have no room for critical viewing? Does being related to "reading or books" sufficient for such unquestionable and noncritical acceptance? Or was something else about it that makes it so cocksure good?
Watching Mr. Rogers as an adult, I was surprised by how opinionated the show could be. There was an episode where one of the puppets was trying to teach a child puppet to read before they entered school, and it was presented as a extremely harsh and mean way to treat a child. A human actor comes in and starts scolding the puppet that it's not necessary to teach the kids to read before school and that she needs to stop. Later, Mr. Rogers talks with an actual kindergarten teacher, and they discuss how it's completely unnecessary to teach kids to read before they enter kindergarten.
It felt like it was indoctrinating kids into believing that the right way to raise them was the way that Fred Rogers preferred.
There's this strange point of view that once it's decided that something is good and it's being made by good people, it's absurd to look at it critically and anyone who does should be mocked.
I think the one you are talking about is Episode 1462.
In Episode 1462 Lady Elaine is badgering people for not knowing all their letters and numbers etc before showing up for school.
The point is not about knowing them before you show up, the point is about addressing learning anxiety!
The point of that section is to tell children that if they don't know these things before they first show up at school, that it's not the end of the world!
Different kids are going to come from different backgrounds, this segment addresses that so when kids show up to school and don't know these things, that they don't feel stressed and upset that other kids may know something they don't. That is something they can turn a kid off from school and wanting to learn forever.
Were in a place where you learned things like that before you ever went to school? If so, that can cause resentment!
The episode only portrays education before school in a negative light, though. It's message isn't "it's fine to teach kids before they enter school and after they enter school, but you shouldn't badger them." Characters continually say that it's wrong to try to teach kids these things before they enter school, or that if a kid doesn't want to learn them before they enter school parents are wrong to try.
In 1462, look at around 12:30, Elaine is trying to teach Tuesday, who doesn't want to learn, he wants to leave. So Mr. McFeely objects by saying that Tuesday doesn't need to learn them before he goes to school.
Then look at 17:15. Elaine says that Tuesday needs to study, and Aberlin immediately objects saying that he hasn't started school yet. When Elaine says that school is about learning numbers and letters, Aberlin says that that's not true "according to the real teacher." Followed by Mr. Rogers saying that Elaine thinks that everything about school needs to be hard and boring, and that's just not the way it is. But "parents trying to teach you about numbers and letters just want things to be hard and boring" isn't a good message, to say the least.
You're right that Elaine is portrayed as being mean, but that's part of the problem. It feels very much like a negative caricature. No one is saying "here's a good way to teach kids before school," they're all saying "don't be so mean, they don't need to learn these things."
I don't feel so easy about a show teaching very young children that their preferred approach to child rearing is morally correct and other approaches are morally wrong.
(Thanks for a link to the episodes, by the way. 1462 and 1463.)
I think you're taking away a different message from what I did, I watch 1462 and 1463 looking for this section.
The message I got was not "don't learn this stuff before school", the message I took away was that, for a lot of kids watching that show on PBS, especially around the air date of 1979, you were looking at "latchkey kids" plus the incredible struggles of poverty and access to information.
It wasn't "don't learn this", it was "you are not less of a human being because you were born into a family that didn't or couldn't take the time to help teach you these things before you started school". That was the takeaway, for me, and for a lot of the kids I grew up around that weren't privileged.
But it's not showing that. You could have two kids start school at the same time and say that it's OK that they didn't have different backgrounds. But that's not what they showed - they're showing people who are telling Elaine it's wrong to teach the kids when the kids want to go off and play.
> "you are not less of a human being because you were born into a family that didn't or couldn't take the time to help teach you these things before you started school"
But Elaine does want to teach the kids in this episode. I don't see how this episode would do anything other than encourage fewer parents to try to teach their kids before they go off to school.
That is a Waldorf perspective, though presumably not exclusive to them. I was sent to a Waldorf kindergarten, and my mother despised it because they repeatedly insulted her for having taught me to read. They felt this was unhealthy.
Independent of Waldorf, kindergarten teachers - like most teachers - don't like it when their students already know the material they're supposed to be teaching.
> Independent of Waldorf, kindergarten teachers - like most teachers - don't like it when their students already know the material they're supposed to be teaching.
Yes, "don't do it that way, you're not suppose to know that yet" is depressingly common. Also unfair, since it usually only applies to certain kids - we don't tell artistic kids that they shouldn't paint so well, because kids aren't supposed to be at that level yet, nor do we tell athletic kids this. But it's extremely common in subjects like math.
One of the things that's frustrating is the one size fits all mentality when it comes to education. Even if some kids don't get a lot out of home education, some really enjoy it, and it can be a great bonding experience for many parents and children. It feels irresponsible to dismiss it all together.
> we don't tell artistic kids that they shouldn't paint so well, because kids aren't supposed to be at that level yet, nor do we tell athletic kids this. But it's extremely common in subjects like math.
It's even more common as applied to holding a job, which is out-and-out illegal for children in most cases.
"...when one assumes that all of the wealthiest people on the planet who share the least (and own the media, publishers, etc.) are all committed collectivist..."
I will not engage with "woke right" or all of your points, much of which appears to be sarcasm.
However, I will note that historically collectivist movements such as the early Progressives around the dawn of the 20th century, were championed by wealthy elites. Looking back it is easy to see how the centralization of authority in this era benefited the elite classes disproportionately.
So, yes, I agree that much of the messaging for collectivist movements does focus on the perceived victim classes. However, that is only the surface level marketing. When examining the historical record, critics generally cite the outcomes rather than the slogans.
Hope this helps to add perspective to this contentious issue.
It's known that Hyprland Premium is going to include a bunch of pre-made dotfiles including a Quickshell bar config, if you want to see the current top-tier rice: https://quickshell.outfoxxed.me/
Quickshell demo looks cool, but how are they going to keep people subscribed? I mean once you have the dotfile(s) you can just bounce and if they are just dotfiles users can just share them.
Sure but we can have something compatible while more stable: quadro etc that can stand on 2+ legs. So far I see the only actually practical robots in industry or at home not resembling humans in the slightest. Just the arms, if that.
It makes good sense because companies actually have an absurd amount of liability to you if they violate your agreement.