I am disappointed there were not donkeys in any image.

I agree with you on "don't do big software project" Specially do not fast scale them out to hundreds of people. You have to scale them more organically ensuring that every person added is a net gain. They think that adding more people will reduce the time.

I am surprised on the lack of creativity when doing these projects. Why don't they start 5 small projects building the same thing and let them work for a year. At the end of the year you cancel one of the projects, increasing the funding in the other four. You can do that every year based on the results. It may look like a waste but it will significantly increase your chances of succeeding.

Not all the flat earthers are true believers. Some are there just for the attention or other motives.

IMHO. It is futile to level the field with the wealthy. They will always have the better opportunities, education, connections, etc. They will find a way.

But we should keep trying to give more opportunities to the less fortunate. Better education, remedial classes, free school lunches, child credits, etc. We do that by asking the wealthy to contribute more. Not by taking away their advantages.(e.g. Admission tests)

> Not by taking away their advantages.(e.g. Admission tests)

Admissions tests are actually not as big of a driver for the academic advantage of the wealthy. Especially at flagship institutions a lot of it is simply traced back to legacy admissions, athletics, and extra-curricular activities. Those latter two are more gamed by the wealthy than anything.

Removing admission tests and focusing only on the application is actually a huge boon to wealthy families who want to get their children into the best universities because it removes the hard part (having to learn enough to do well in exams) and replaces it with things that are easy to game, like writing essays and getting a track record of doing extra-curriculars.

Standardized tests actually make it easier for lower income families to compete for spots for academically advanced children because they’re measuring academic advancement. Even if it’s not a perfect measure, it’s way better than substituting non-academic things that are so easily gamed by the wealthy.

I sort of agree, but in my experience, wealthy parents have the money for extra classes, tutoring, SAT/ACT prep, etc., which enable their kid to get a high SAT score. These are resources which the disadvantaged don't have. So while an "average" wealthy kid might score 780 with all the help afforded to them, it would take a truly exceptional poor kid to score 780 since they're essentially bootstrapping from natural talent alone.

So whether you include SAT scores in admissions or not, it's still heavily skewed.

Also, the problem with SAT scores is that you end up studying to the test. (This is why Chinese applicants do so well on college entrance exams - they spent most of their high school studying for the specific range/type of questions they will be asked on the test.)

I never thought about the ease at which you can game non-academic aspects. I agree that testing is probabamtic because a good tutor can boost peoples performance signficantly but there feels like a limit to actually just learning the material. Useful evalation metrics of people are notoriously difficult

May be an opportunity to find talent for State or City governments that want to create their own digital services agencies?

there are lots of them already, but many more that need them.

May be you are Danish but you don't know. Time to ask your parents.

If you learned English after 16. You probably still have an accent. Native speakers are really, really, really good at detecting it. They probably know as soon as you say "Hi".

If you tune up your detector that high it’s very likely you’ll get false positives. I’ve met Americans with fairly strong “accents” that aren’t necessarily a dialect either, just a different way of speaking. It could also be a mix with parents who are non-native. American English is vast, and very heterogeneous.

If we’re talking about specific parts like a regional dialect then I would agree, those are tricky to acquire later, at least to those undetectable levels. They can be extremely specific.

Yep big difference in accents of my cousins who moved here when they were 9 and another when they were 18. Now they are in their mid forties and you can still tell who moved when based on their accent. Its impossible to change your accent after late teens.

Non native can do this pretty good just due to how much American Media is available to the world.

there are people who are better than other people at blending in their accents, even in more difficult languages than English (for accent coding), perhaps they are just very good at that.

Perhaps you need several program levels? remedial, normal, advanced and gifted.

My naive take is that there is a need for each. remedial helps kids to catch up. Normal is where you have perhaps 70% of the students, advanced where you have kids with more natural ambition in some subjects and gifted is where you send the top 5%?

Interesting. Just a shower thought, but it looks to me that learning to build cloud solutions is amenable to use the case method famously used in Harvard Law School.

There is the LGBT. Specially the T part. The right thing is to do is support their rights, and it is very hard not to do the right thing when you know what the right thing is. However, the republicans have weaponized it against the democrats. They call them radical left and they campaign saying things like the want to convert your sons in girls and other awful things. It is an imposible choice because it can cost you the election.

Except both sides disagree on the "right thing."

It's same for both sides. Pro-life stance cost them a lot of votes and could easily cost them election.