I might have missed it when scanning the article, but nowhere did it mention how the formal ethical codes for docs and lawyers are backed up by licenses and review panels and exams. Are they proposing the same regulation before allowing someone to build an app?
Would they call for the same for journalists too? Arguably, the media has an equal need for ethical oversight, but we generally prefer the media to be free of partisan interference.
I believe journalists and technologists are better off without state or federal licensing to enforce ethical codes.
I moved, in my 30's, to a non-English-speaking country. I tried Babble and DuoLingo. Babble was crap, and DuoLingo was alright at slowly expanding my vocab, but the sentences were idiotic. One example was "The horse is touching me" which I found particularly useless. I also tried private lessons, but the cost was high and required more effort than I had time for.
Rosetta Stone has, so far, been the best, precisely because it relies on immersion.
The downside is that I think the situations are traveler centric, and overly simplistic.
To my mind, the best way I've improved is by memorizing "scripts" of common interactions. For example, ordering coffee, or memorizing answers to the common questions people ask me about myself.
I've never said "The boy jumps over the water," in any language, but I have said, "I'd like a double espresso with hot water on the side, no milk or sugar" or "I'll be at home at 2 pm" many times. As I add scripts, my vocab improves.
Most fluent immigrants I've spoken to say that watching a ton of TV in the language was a massive help.
I've been consumed with this idea since going back to France for a few days after living there for five months almost 10 years earlier. I had the experience of trying to learn Danish mostly by immersion and a little by terrible classes (no one seems to have an idea how to make Danish phonetics decently teachable, and that's the number 1 challenge in Danish). I theorized that foreign language learning has evolved to develop a pyramidal approach towards literary translation. That's definitely an important skill, but my guess is 99% of people interested in in a foreign language don't care about that level of language mastery, even in their native tongue, and would much prefer to learn enough grammar to start to acquire more and more conversational fluidity. People shouldn't read poetry in foreign language learning, but magazines. People should watch TV, partly because there's so much TV/video available in every language now via the web, and it's a great venue to hear diversified fluent speakers speak, rather than just actors or newscasters who are trained in speaking as clearly as possible.
My plan for Danish was to try and establish a transcript feed for viewing DR programs online, so you could watch the most audibly diverse shows on your device and quickly refer to the complete transcript (not the CC for hearing impaired because it scrubs the verbal grammar a bit and omits the vocal punctuation that are extremely important for holding your own in a foreign language), and change the playback, jump back and forth a few seconds, etc., the way one reads and rereads a passage in a text that catches their attention or evades comprehension at first.
That sounds really cool, actually. I rely on YouTube/Daily Motion for shows in foreign languages but I struggle without a transcript due to dialect and speed.
When there are subtitles, it helps immensely, so I imagine your idea would be a benefit on top of this already helpful technique.
re: Chesterton's Fence - great analogy. Until they mention the significant benefits of the lower capital gains tax, and how raising taxes won't detract from those benefits, the entire premise appears woefully unprepared.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, the premise is that deferring taxation allows for wealth to grow "unfairly" and that the annual growth should be taxed annually. Wouldn't this decimate retirement funds, increasing the risk of investing in stocks and put even more pressure on Americans who already likely to outlive their retirement savings?
I know it talks about only taxing the 0.1% but that doesn't appear sound to me. I'm skeptical. I'd feel better if the proponents of this actually addressed the benefits of a lower capital gains tax and how their plan would maintain these benefits.
I'm most amazed that Netflix has retained this aspect of their business. My guess would have been it was more effort than benefit, considering the focus of Netflix and their direction.
> Contrary to commonsense belief, attempts to measure productivity through performance metrics discourage initiative, innovation and risk-taking.
Is this really contrary to commonsense belief? I think most business leaders are very aware of this, however, the alternative is chaos. That's why certain specialist teams are given leeway.
I think awareness is very bimodal. I've sat in rooms with people who really thought they could transform a business with 5% YOY improvements.
(That's not always the wrong view, either — a key part of this is recognizing what kind of situation you're in and whether you really have the trust and resources to bank on a revolutionary change)
> For example, one OfficeMax employee complained to corporate management in 2012, saying 'I cannot justify lying to a customer or being TRICKED into lying to them for our store to make a few extra dollars
