This is, in general, close to what the Australian NBN model was aiming for; the fibre capacity was to be "leased" wholesale to the commercial entities, with the leases used for maintenance & upgrades. In theory it avoids special interests & provides a baseline platform.
Obviously the situation has it's differences, but the original form of the National Broadband Network[0] here in Australia was, in part, to help nip these kinds of problems in the bud. It was close to a nationwide glass utility, but still allowed for a competitive commercial market. There was a lot of excitement for both short-term technological gains & long-term economics. I'm still dirty it got so mangled.
As an off-topic aide: was "I'm not a communist" tongue in cheek? Or would such an infrastructure project be actually seen as "communist" &/or undesirable just for it's oversight?
Careful with the strawmen; it was never stated that there is no difference. The point I read was that unfair advantage should be discouraged in all forms, no matter how insidious or subtle. I think it's a very valid point: You don't need to be a moral absolutist, but it's only fair to keep an eye on the nuanced avenues of unfair advantage as well as the explicit ones.
In my experience it has been declining in importance. In the past I'd see jobs advertised asking little more than a degree (or equiv. industry experience). Today I still see degrees listed, but often as "preferred" & always amongst a litany of other skill-based requirements.
Seems to be that there's at least some commercial pressure to value the "piece of paper" less. Of course it could also be that a degree is now the de facto baseline, & the wheels just keep turning.
I thought it was fun. What can I say, I enjoy pop psychology.
Further though, I find it has had a real effect on how I relate to others. Reading of the different MBTI's, particularly how different types communicate, forced me to seek to understand the nuances & preferences of individual styles of social interaction. Sometimes broad personality generalisations are all that are needed to establish a meaningful channel of communication.
I would recommend doing the test or at least reading the 16 types, if for no other reason than it forces you to be mindful of the fact that there are many large & small differences between individual personalities.
> it's very unlikely that his son would have ever been a contributing member of society.
I'm having trouble getting past this comment. I don't wish to malign you debacle - I'm sure you're not being malicious - but it seems like a very unkind & privileged mindset. I hope this isn't representative of the community.
Paul Gionfriddo certainly doesn't consider his son to lack contribution.
Reiterating the sentiment. Seems great so far, but there are some errors that could create confusion. The good news is the author left his email address, so I dare say he's well aware by now :)
Indeed! So now you've got 30 minutes worth of CO2 hanging around in your blood... Surely that's going to cause some issues? Anyone with some biology smarts able to explain if this would be a problem?
That aside, I wonder what the nano-med applications are for this. For example an implant for high-risk patients that injects a dose upon respiratory failure etc. Heck if it were feasible such would be handy for anyone to have.
Braille. Can you imagine the world of potential here for our low-vision friends? Dynamic text for signs (seen through something like Google's glass), down to topographical layout of the ground in front of you for navigation... This could really shake things up.
If I may make a suggestion for next time though: please consider finding a place with better wheelchair access.
It's very disheartening to see the de facto bias towards able-bods reenforced. Of course, I'm certain this wasn't by intent, but it's something I'd love to see improved.
Maybe I missed the point of the article, but I thought it was a wonderful gedanken on social psychology - technological veracity aside. Valid or not, it illustrates (IMHO) some very interesting elements of our "advanced" civilisations :)
Good piece, this discussion is needed. It's about disability too.
May I briefly weigh in with an anecdote - please take it only for what it's worth:
I am a quadriplegic due to a diving accident when I was 13. I know my limitations better than any recruiter or HR department ever could, & while I have some personal concerns with meritocracies in general (especially as social policy), I only ever apply for positions in which I can be sure I meet the inherent requirements of the job. Again, I am a good worker with good skills, but I will not apply for positions in which I can't bring proper, uninhibited value.
So no problem, right? I should be awarded consideration in line with my meritocratic value. That's how the world works...
Rubbish.
Regardless of council regulations mandating otherwise, I cannot access most (yes, most) workplaces due to physical barriers (poor parking, doorways, stairs etc). I'm sure some places in the world are better, but here I am. In fact I've been knocked back for not being able to access an interview room upstairs (in a semi-govt. owned office, mind you) - the actual workplace for the job was on ground level. That's not even to mention the stereotype I'm perceived as by a frightening majority of interviewees.
No, I don't have a chip on my shoulder, far from it. I'm just saying it's hard to ignore the greetings of (half-speed) "HELLO BUDDY! ARE YOU GOOD TODAY?" from people who have administered & approved your intellectual aptitude tests. Unfortunately I'm not exaggerating.
Meritocracies are not dependent on a passive HR stance. Get active about it.
Educate your staff, ensure equality of access, or at least have the guts to be honest about what attributes you're looking for.
Being a "customer review" log, I think the sentiment of the comments posted are valid. If the App crashes, you assign a star rating accordingly. Sounds exactly like what one should expect.
It's unforgiving out in the wild. It might not be ideal, but that's the system we have (until support systems are integrated into the store). Even if there was a brilliant direct feedback/support portal & the customer used it to your satisfaction, I believe it's still appropriate to rate a product based on your experience with it. If it crashes, it's going to get a lower rating, regardless of how many reps apologised & promised to fix it.