People will often watch something they dislike with more intensity than something they like. The number of dislikes isn't the reason they want to watch it, it's the idea the title or cover image brings to mind. And those ideas and images are curated by Google.
Take the number of dislikes out of visibility and you strip the noise away from the signal that makes them money; views.
And who knows, the user might end up watching something that they wouldn't normally due to dislikes and, surprise, they like it. More exposure, less echo chamber-like. Less potential influence over a viewer's opinion of the content.
This is yet another move to make YouTube friendly to the same powers that be everywhere. This is a tool for centralized control, not a platform for everyone.
The reason they're doing this is the whitehouse is a joke. It's harder to convince the proles they should continue to be as easily mollified as they are when the proles aren't aware of how angry everyone else is.
It's hard to convince the world that what the TV people are paid to say is correct when it's clear that the vast majority disagree.
Promise resolution tracking for political choices could be a useful tool. With each promise tracked you could produce a percent which could be displayed with the candidates picture and a brief synopsis of their "score". The contact information and a tool to initiate communication would all be available (even if the communication is just email), and you could even have the politicians join so that they could have like an intern respond to messages or something.
Austin may have been the right guy to start the company, but IMHO, he should've handed it off to someone with a background in education a long time ago.
I think the problem is that their part time outcomes were much smaller than full time. And it wasn't entirely an instructor or curriculum related problem.
You are correct that schools like this (secondary/trade, not ISA, necessarily) do well during economic downturns, historically.
My (limited) experience tutoring at another code school resonates with this opinion. It would be great to see a high rate of positive outcomes from part-time students. Many of them simply had too many other priorities to focus on making their coursework successful.
My ISA with lambda is for $30k USD that I started paying after I landed a job. There is no additional tuition. Program is less than a year. That's significantly cheaper than any of the universities I could have gone to.
The trade off, in my mind, is that I didn't become a SWE in lambda. Engineering is far more broad than learning how to build a CRUD app. Since Lambda, my self appointed curriculum has been engineering fundamentals, design patters/language/etc. Knowing how to write a BST is a lot different than understanding the core concepts behind everyday algos.
I think this is correct, re: the Pareto principle.
I'm a Lambda grad (Full stack web, not DS) and at the end of the program, I was knowledgeable about a lot more than I understood; and that also includes being knowledgeable about a lot of my shortcomings that I was painfully unaware of before Lambda.
A year after Lambda working as a SWE and I am now finally starting to feel a sense of domain... I hesitate to call it expertise, so lets say domain 'comfort' when it comes to building and maintaining react or react-like FE applications and node BE apis. I've had a mentor at my company since I started and mentorship is necessary for anyone coming out of a bootcamp with no prior industry experience, IMO.
The expectations set within the bootcamp are reasonable, IMO. Instructors never made it seem like we were going to fully internalize everything we were being bombarded with. Practicing what you learn is crucial to turning any of the things taught into a skillset, and that is made very clear.
I imagine the outcomes are pretty good for those who get through the program, as well. They were great for me and most of my cohort peers that I keep in contact with. The ISA model, IMO, makes a lot of sense and I'd be surprised if Lambda couldn't make it work in the long run.
I believe the OP's point was that those things (Agent orange, tobacco <> cancer, etc) which our society almost universally agree upon were once, themselves, targeted by dis/misinformation campaigns.
And that if we are to allow censorship, we are allowing the potential for disinformation campaigns.
IMO, the flaws in this argument are that it assumes a disinformation campaign is something the censor entity is controlling (specifically the US military, in the Agent Orange example). It also assumes disinformation is the only tactic available to a bad actor to manipulate the public.
To the spirit of the OP's point, though, I think we need to be wary of any corporation pledging to make the world a safer place by monitoring our communications.
Of course the situation is not binary; there are things that should be censored. I would like our law enforcement to use any tool at their disposal to stop human trafficking. Murder is not cool, AT&T should help LE look into those as well. Politician Y is trolling the internet with lies; we actually have a toolset for that and it's called journalism. Understanding that journalism/media is actually part of the problem here doesn't mean AT&T can do a better job.
For the brief amount of time I was your student at Lambda, you made a huge impression. Beyond this tutorial, you're a gifted teacher and inspirational person. Much respect and love!
I'll read your future-brainwave-transmission tutorials, anytime, even if they run the risk of causing minor insanity!
Tools exist, for analysts and engineers (MS Access comes to mind for the analyst, python for the engineer), that would rectify the problem. And I think it's a fair assumption to say that those tools would be readily available.
Kinda sounds like a management issue, as well. No one ever said "hey you know XLS doesn't support all of this data"?
People will often watch something they dislike with more intensity than something they like. The number of dislikes isn't the reason they want to watch it, it's the idea the title or cover image brings to mind. And those ideas and images are curated by Google.
Take the number of dislikes out of visibility and you strip the noise away from the signal that makes them money; views.
And who knows, the user might end up watching something that they wouldn't normally due to dislikes and, surprise, they like it. More exposure, less echo chamber-like. Less potential influence over a viewer's opinion of the content.