Forget children. I regularly coerce adults - junior members of my team - to learn properly things they don't care to learn too much. Both for the benefit of the organization (society in the case of children) and for their own benefit.
I will bet that the number of adults who ever engage in coloring or painting as adults is extremely small. Probably less than the number of full time scientists, engineers, finance professionals etc. Yet no one complains that we are forcing students to do art in school, even when many students don't particularly like doing art. Why? Because we recognize that developing general artistic ability in humans is important, so we need art classes.
The other argument about teaching "advanced math" is the same as why Cristiano Ronaldo spends a significant part of his training in the gym lifting weights? Ever seen Ronaldo take out a barbell and start doing squats during a game? One should reflect on this.
Math is a tool for solving problems, and people will do work to create value that they will share with you for helping them solve a problem which will ultimately create even more value.
In short, math is a powerhouse tool for carrying society forward.
Art, while cool to look at and experience, has a pretty low efficacy in terms of "motivating people to do work, or removing obstacles, to carry society forward"
In short, starving artists.
There is also the whole thing where art is an abstract concept with a subjective definition, and a solar cell sporting new tech with 33% efficiency objectively being better than one with 24% efficiency.
I cannot support such thinking. Art is foundational to human experience. People crave that their free time is filled with good food, good music, good books, good movies and shows in beautiful houses with beautiful gardens. All of these are various forms of art.
There were humans for tens of thousands of years before there was high technology. But there were hardly any humans around before there was art.
> Art, while cool to look at and experience, has a pretty low efficacy in terms of "motivating people to do work, or removing obstacles, to carry society forward"
Idk, the soviets didn't invest in socialist realism propaganda for nothing.
Less sarcastically, art has had an outsized influence on society and culture. Take any social movement you want, and there was probably some novel or work of art that galvanized it.
Firstly, measuring art in $ terms ignores the benefits that extend way beyond $ terms. Most fine art produced has a value approaching 0. My wife and I buy art from time to time, but we've never spent more than about $100 or so, yet get disproportionate pleasure from it.
As a first order approximation the "price" of art (as distinct from its value) is a function of branding not asthetics.
Secondly most artists get paid, not from doing fine art, but from adjacent careers that require good color, balance, composition, and so on. Industrial designers (think Jonny Ive), interior design, food presentation, magazine layout, web design, architecture and so on. Art skills are all around us. In the same way engineering is around us.
Put another way, engineers build ugly (think beige PC boxes). It took an artist to give us the iMac. And it was a marketing genius (yet another important skillset) to bring the artist and engineer together.
Teaching math goes far beyond creating mathematicians. Teaching art goes far beyond teaching artists. Societies that drop art because it is unproductive get ugliness permeating everywhere.
I'm not sure i agree witb the ratio. I think its much more lopsided. E.g. 100,000 artists in, one trillion dollar work of art out. (I'm counting indirect value. e.g. All the people who read Dune or a silent spring and become environmentalists as a result should have their value attributed to that work of art)
Also i'd point out the selection bias of not counting people who fail out of engineering school but still counting every unsuccessful artist.
I have this inner model of something i call "the rock star economics": many people want to do music but only one becomes a rock star and makes serious money. But he gets so much attention that many more people want to become rock stars.
Applies to art, fashion, media.
Most practical (including engineering) successes are much less externally attractive but do make decent money for everybody involved.
I know this is going to seem reductive, but especially with young children we teach art due to the value it gives them as individuals developing. Not for the GDP or individual fiscal benefit.
Further, judging the value of art to society by how much it costs is ridiculous and an asinine comparison.
Art class as part of public education is not completely uncontrovertial.
It grew out of a time where basic artistic skills were expensive to learn, and could be a real class differentiator (and had some employment benefits).
That's now a fair bit less true; but still continues to prevent these things becoming the sole domain of private schools.
There are only about 1.6 billion cars in the world. Only about 20% of the world population has access to a personal car. Less than that have ever ridden a plane, and less than 10% fly with any regularity.
A super majority of greenhouse gases emitted are due to the lives of the top 20-30% of the population (of which unfortunately I am a part). The remaining people's contributions are small. 80:20 rule in full glory.
Worst of all, the 80% are the most impacted by climate change as TFA illustrates.
The biggest hope at this point honestly is that fewer people are having kids and we're on track to halve the world population in another couple generations. Greenhouse emissions cut by half.
The per capita emissions of USA/Canada/Gulf countries have to be cut by a factor of 8-10 to reach sustainable levels. The per capita emissions of EU/China/SEA have to cut by 4 to reach sustainable levels. All within the next 25 years if we want to avoid crossing tipping points.
Halving the population in 50 years is not a realistic plan.
I haven't read up on all the assumptions made for those projections. If something unassumed pops up that makes things substantially worse then the population peak would come earlier I guess. But that's a gamble.
For a more down to earth example, my graduate school student union also only negotiated the floor of pay and benefits. The compensation for graduate students varied easily by 50% over this floor, even students in the same department.
?? add relevant wifi/port to connect to a projector/projection glasses / laser projector[0]
3 old micro ibm hard drives combined into rgb color space / diy laser image projector[1] might be able provide a bigger picture without exceeding DIY credit card size. kinda depends on laser size.
Ummm... a smartphone internal projector module more compact than diy stack of ibm microdrives / laser.[2]
As I understand it, these cards work basically the same way as transit card systems in other countries, like the SF Bay Area's "Clipper" cards.
The overall model is similar to tap-to-pay debit cards. They're only used for consumer-to-business payments. When you tap the card, the card sends over an account number / signature / etc, which the merchant sends to a central clearinghouse to finalize the transactions.
The main difference is that the card itself keeps a running balance of how much money the customer has available to spend. In many cases, this gives the merchant enough confidence to e.g. let you through the train turnstile without actually waiting for the central clearinghouse to confirm the transaction. (I think in practice they usually send all the transactions in batches, daily or weekly or something.)
The readers do some trusted-computing/secure-enclave type stuff but are not especially hard to obtain; I think there have even been cases where companies like Nintendo have built them into consumer products, so that you could e.g. tap your card to your Nintendo 3DS to buy a video game.
I imagine there's a bit more security on the machines that let you load money on the cards, but it's probably not completely impossible to make a fake card. But the low value limit (usually a couple hundred dollars, depending on the card provider), the inability to get cash out of the system (often you can't even buy things like postage stamps), and the fact that you'll get caught relatively quickly (once the central clearinghouse notices the transactions don't match up) make it unattractive to do it in practice.
Why would you include the money required to pay shareholders, pay the humongous parts of the company doing ad tech, the lobbying money, the fine money, etc. What is the cost of running a social media site?
I have previously calculated that Mastodon costs including development are on the order of 1 EUR/person/year [1]. Even if you 10x it, it's nothing. Facebook does nothing more technically complicated than the forums of the 90s. It's just smarter design.
I am not. I am explicitly saying to offset revenue from ads. That's a different question. Best of luck getting Facebook-level distribution in your 1 EUR Mastodon.
There are no technical reasons preventing the Mastodon federated network from scaling to billions of users. An individual server might not be able to scale to even 10 million users, but that is by design. There should be thousands or better tens of thousands of servers each supporting a small number of users, with moderation handled at the server level.
Banks and Visa/Mastercard probably love that you fill out your CC details on an online store, and next time you can just 1-click pay. Probably causes a big jump in revenue/profit. That's why they never innovated much.
Of course, it is incorrect, and digital payments everywhere (on a kiosk or online) should be intentional pushes, not pulls.
I want many payments to be pull-based (at least I'd go crazy having to positively sign off every utility bill and subscription), but the ideal user interface for pull payments shows who exactly is pulling what, with a few days notice, and a one-click way to cancel any standing authorization.
This is actually how it works in India with "e-mandates".
In order to set up a recurring bill the merchant must get a "mandate" from the customer, which involves them approving the amount/frequency/term of the payment. The customer can at any time view a list of open mandates on their bank's web site/app and cancel any they wish. Recurring payments only succeed when the mandate remains valid.
The payment amount may be revised downward without getting a new mandate, but raising it up requires replacing the old mandate with a new one.
In order to make a non-initial charge the merchant must pre-authorize it with the bank a few days prior (handing the ID of mandate under which the charge is made to the bank), and pass the confirmation they get back from the bank when they do the real charge. The bank notifies the customer about the upcoming renewal and its amount.
That still works. There are three entities: customer, bank and merchant.
The merchant should never be able to pull from your bank account. However, the merchant can send an invoice for a payment. Either the customer manually pushes the payment, or delegates to the bank that each invoice from merchant X should immediately result in a payment push [1].
The difference from the pull system is that the customer can at any point end this automatic push payment, but in the pull system the customer can only beg the merchant (eg. the gym) to stop charging their account.
[1] Or even better in an ideal world, delegate this pushing to their local finance app. So the bank can't put roadblocks for a customer cancelling a subscription.
> [...] the merchant can send an invoice for a payment. Either the customer manually pushes the payment, or delegates to the bank that each invoice from merchant X should immediately result in a payment push [1].
This already very close to how SEPA direct debits currently operate. I can instruct my bank with one click to stop honoring a given direct debit mandate (they'll then block all further payments under the same mandate reference), request any payment to be reversed for any reason (that I don't have to provide) etc.
The only difference to your suggested model is that the default is to honor all new mandates. I believe nothing – operationally or from a scheme perspective – prevents banks from requiring positive confirmation for every new mandate or even every single direct debit, though, and some banks (but not mine) even support this.
> in the pull system the customer can only beg the merchant (eg. the gym) to stop charging their account.
My central problem is that in current pull based systems (both CC and direct debit), the merchant has access to the information to take money from my account. But that information can leak and someone else can take money from my account.
It's insane that digital systems are less secure than cash based system. If a merchant hands me a paper invoice, they can't just take cash out of my wallet.
The merchant should communicate to me where I need to deposit money, and I should put that into my system. The merchant should have little to no information about me.
> [...] the merchant has access to the information to take money from my account. But that information can leak and someone else can take money from my account.
Not in the implementation where any new merchant (or even new mandate reference of the same merchant, e.g. for two Netflix subscriptions pulling from the same account) has to be positively confirmed, which is possible in SEPA as I've described.
This is possible because, unlike cards, SEPA has no payment guarantee/chargeback protection at all. Otherwise, you'd indeed need some way of positively approving new recurring payment mandates.
reply