To expand: the Chicago Harbors close over the winter. You can do whatever you want with your boat, but you can’t keep it there.
Second, the Chicago River system is a navigable waterway according to federal law. The bridges must open for your boat to pass. But… there isn’t much in the way of a requirement about how long you have to wait. As a compromise, the city and the boat owners got together and designate opening times that are convenient enough, and then flotillas of boats get together to use the system at those times.
The bridges still open when large commercial vessels want them to, but that is increasingly rare as most river boats have their pilothouse on hydraulics - it raises for visibility in open space and lowers to go under the bridges.
Oh, and the Kinzie St bridge is not permanently open. It closes once a year for about 30 minutes while they drive a truck with train wheels over it. This maintains the status as an active rail line - Union Pacific doesn’t want to give up ownership of the right of way (which is legitimately valuable).
...then all those clicks juice engagement and utilization numbers; why would someone want to just know their grade when they can use more clicks and custom apps to get the same info? </s>
The party line is probably something about "a lack of data security" with email, which would almost be funny given the current situation if it wasn't so stressful for those impacted...
No, students are already forced to use Canvas enough as is. This is enterprise software, it's not a consumer phone app. This is nothing to do with "engagement".
This is to do with FERPA which requires that student grades be kept private. There is a small but still a significant legal risk that someone else such as a parent or roommate could have access to a student's email. And so to avoid even the possibility of a court case, schools prefer to play it safe and display grades only to a user they can authenticate directly.
This doesn't have anything to do with common sense, it's simply about legal risk. And it's not about security in a broader sense, it's specifically about privacy FERPA legislation.
FERPA allows emailing confidential information to a student email on record if the university controls the email account. Most universities offer their own email service (and require using it) for this exact reason.
There is no more risk of access to email than there is to Canvas. They are usually secured by the same SSO, too.
However, congratulations for finding the exact dodge around implementing a useful feature. Back when I worked at a university, it was apparent we had a “toolbox” of reasons to deny requests we didn’t want to do: HIPAA, FERPA, ERISA, PCI, GLBA, Title IX, ADA.
“We can’t do that integration with student health services due to HIPAA concerns.”
“We can’t implement that sign up form due to FERPA.”
“We can’t update that site because we’d have to do so and be ADA compliant and that would cost too much.”
“Due to Dining Services’ server being in scope for PCI, we can’t run reports off of it.”
“Adding that ability to Student Affairs’ portfolio app would raise Title IX concerns.”
It was great. You had endless excuses to say why you can’t email a student their grade.
I already said it's not about common sense, it's about legal risk.
It's about edge cases like someone set up your email to forward all your emails to their account without you knowing. Or other additional situations you could imagine.
There is no benefit to not emailing grades directly, from the perspective of Instructure. There is no ulterior motive here. But universities are genuinely risk-averse and their lawyers tell them that not including the grade in the email simply shuts down one more avenue for some potential lawsuit. Which costs money to defend even if a university wins it.
This isn't some kind of "dodge". This is literally just Instructure doing what university lawyers demand.
I agree with you that the email address is generally always also controlled by the school and has the same login authentication. It doesn't matter. I told you this isn't about common sense. This is about lawyers saying that it could reduce legal risk. And that is a true thing that is coming from real lawyers. Even if you disagree with those lawyers.
And Instructure isn't going to try to disagree with lawyers for its own potential customers. It's going to give the schools what they want, which is not revealing grades via email.
Have you ever worked in an environment where you were responsible for building systems that complied with FERPA and you worked with your school's general counsel and compliance team on that?
What you are saying about e-mail is simply not factual. Student e-mail is inside the FERPA environment, and is considered private to the student. It was designed to be that way. If a student sets up forwarding to go to someone else, that's their problem. The student e-mail uses the same SSO as the LMS, so it's nonsense to act like someone else could have access to e-mail.
Then the lawyers are incompetent morons. There's "no benefit" to telling the student their own grade at all when viewed from that perspective. You could just not give them any feedback. Or you could allow them to consent to it, which is what the law asks.
It is a dodge. Society should not just say "oh those silly lawyers". These people are not being responsible. They are not doing their jobs.
As someone who transitioned from working in startups and technology to a university, it is hard to describe how different the environment is.
It looks very weird and is hard to understand from the outside, and unfortunately all technology vendors are on the outside.
Basically every technology has an impedance mismatch when brought into the university environment. And when you combine them together it keeps getting worse.
That's why you see things in this thread like CS professors who operate their class using pen and paper and maybe a spreadsheet.
I worked with a lawyer who was the on-staff general counsel for a mid size private university who was not an incompetent moron.
One thing I really appreciated that she did was refuse to put e-mail disclaimers in the bottom of e-mails, because she said they had zero legal weight and actually were negative from a legal perspective, since it means people might think they have legal weight (when they don't).
Overzealous e-mail admins would periodically want to do it because it's what everyone else does, not to mention vendors of frankly B.S. software whose only value prop was adding a disclaimer to all the email that went out of Exchange or Google Workspace.
No, the lawyers are not "incompetent morons", and I highly doubt you have the legal training and domain experience to be qualified to make that assertion.
You would be surprised at the number of frivolous lawsuits and seemingly "zero risk" decisions that wind up turning into actual legal risk and legal fees.
The legal world is a lot more complicated than you think. I've been in some of these conversations. Quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.
> You would be surprised at the number of frivolous lawsuits and seemingly "zero risk" decisions that wind up turning into actual legal risk and legal fees. [¶] The legal world is a lot more complicated than you think.
The law is a lot like an app: It has to take into account a gazillion edge cases and corner cases — not to mention that people can be ignorant and/or malicious. It really is complicated, as you say above.
Well done on not hurling insults at @ndriscoll, BTW. Personal attacks don't persuade the target, and they can turn off onlookers who might be undecided. (Competent lawyers learn early that judges and jurors don't like personal attacks and can be less inclined to believe the attacker.)
The thing is, I don't need that training to recognize that they are failing to contribute to society. This is why I'm saying that it is indeed a dodge. "It's complicated and you don't understand it" isn't an excuse for making the world worse. And yes, it is fully possible for a someone to make that judgement without a large background in law, because it's taking a holistic look at "what was the purpose of this law, and are they interpreting it in line with that purpose?" The details don't matter; the outcomes do. Their job is to deal with the details to reach the desired outcomes. If society is better off for putting them on a boat and sending them into the middle of the ocean, then they are incompetent.
Refusing to give a student their own data because of a privacy law that's meant to give the student control over their data is them failing. Full stop. There's no room for excuses for government funded entities to act in the exact opposite way that they are supposed to to avoid their fear of government imposed penalties from a deliberate misinterpretation of what the entire thing is about. That's incompetence by everyone involved. It is people going out of their way to make the world a worse place to act important. Absolutely unacceptable.
It's like if teachers aren't teaching the kids to read or add, the details about all the compliance stuff they need to worry about and how the school "can't" remove disruptive kids from a class or whatever is missing the point; the schools can't sacrifice actually doing their job at the alter of compliance, or we should just shut them down since all they do is waste resources. The compliance people should be figuring out how to shield the actual workers/create plausible deniability if the law is supposedly that stupid.
The world is complicated. Laws like FERPA are written with good intentions, but there are a lot of gray areas open to interpretation, and bad actors will take advantage of those gray areas to bring lawsuits for selfish purposes that universities have to spend money to defend themselves and possibly pay expensive penalties over. So lawyers advise how to follow laws in the most risk-free way.
Blaming lawyers or Instructure for "failing to contribute to society" is both incredibly immature and factually wrong. It's not the 1980's where jokes about "kill all the lawyers" get laughs.
I'm going to be blunt: you seem to have a kind of black-and-white, adolescent understanding of the world where it's split up into good actors and bad actors, and good actors should do what's right (regardless of the law) and bad outcomes are the result of bad actors. But that's not how the world works. Everybody involved can be intelligent and trying to do their best, and we get suboptimal outcomes because this stuff is hard. Writing laws that protect student data while maximizing student convenience are probably never going to get it perfectly right in every situation. But insulting the lawyers or the schools or Instructure as "failing to contribute to society" or insulting the law as "supposedly that stupid" is to deeply misunderstand everything.
FERPA does not have a lot of "gray areas open to interpretation". It's a well-understand body of law, case law, and regulations, and things like whether or not you can e-mail a student a grade are settled questions.
It's not a misunderstanding of everything, especially for schools that are government funded. They have a mission, they receive resources from everyone else to do that mission. If they are then worried about penalties for some frivolous side distraction, and choose to not accomplish their mission for fear of that, then why are we funding them to start with?
Frankly it's a perspective that I've only developed as I got older and realized that such excuses are poor, and that the real world has quite a few people in it who don't really care about the outcomes of what they're doing, or even understand why they're there. To me it feels adjacent to the adolescent view I often see on this site/reddit around "why is the company laying people off when they're making lots of money?" It's because those people aren't needed for anything, and those jobs aren't a form of charity. They exist for a purpose. If they no longer have a purpose, why would you keep paying that person?
If people are going to exist as obstructions to the purpose of the institution we're trying to serve, then they are useless. It's like a computer security worker saying the best way to be secure is to unplug everything, and push for policies that no one shall use computers for anything. Completely missing the point.
Finding ways to follow the law in the most risk-free way to the detriment of everyone is exactly missing their purpose in the world, and everyone should rightly call such a person incompetent and useless. It's casual acceptance of this kind of incompetence culture that slowly leads to societal decline. It's the same kind of thing as when Berkeley took down their lectures because of the ADA. How about the same state that ignores federal immigration and drug law say that actually they're going to keep giving away their free educational materials because they want universal education, and giving those lectures away is strictly better than not doing that, and if the feds want it made accessible, they can fund a project to do so?
I really don't know what to tell you. You're literally calling for universities to either break the law or not worry so much about following it, and calling people who do want to be careful about following the law "incompentent and useless".
If you don't see how extreme that is, and how much society would break down if everyone started thinking laws were optional and ought to be ignored when they prevent you from accomplishing your "mission", I just don't know what to tell you.
Quite the contrary: society very obviously runs because people ignore policies and laws constantly. That's why following all laws exactly is considered a protest or subversion strategy: malicious compliance.
Like the entire AI industry could only work by completely ignoring copyright law. Basically no software could be written if developers were concientious enough to check for and avoid patents first. Tradesmen ignore safety policies. Doctors ignore limits on hours. People do work on their homes with no permits.
Part of being an adult is exactly knowing which rules are important and which you ignore.
Individuals can choose which laws to ignore, like when they jaywalk.
Corporations, universities, etc. are very different. They create policies which are documented and which their employees are required to follow. They engage in risk analysis.
"Part of being an adult" has nothing whatsoever to do with the laws and regulations that apply to organizations. You're making a severe category error.
At IBM, vim was specifically banned by legal because of reputational risk because the license asks you to consider donating to children in Africa, and IBM didn't want to be called out for not doing so. Guess which editor pretty much everyone in my org used? We also weren't allowed to move furniture because of some union agreement, but guess how many people cared when furniture mysteriously moved from an empty office room into ours? None.
At the startup, people in our satellite office in Arizona openly mocked the California HR harassment training over lunch. It was also an open secret that one of the managers started dating a report. As far as I know many years later they've both moved on to other jobs and they're still together. Nothing bad happened.
Breaking some policies will absolutely get you fired, but that's mostly around doing things you shouldn't be doing, and even then usually only matters if someone else that has some power might themselves get in trouble/have more work/lose something because of what you did. Others no one will care about. Again, part of growing up is figuring out which policies have a purpose and which came from some busybody.
I also already gave the entire AI industry as an example. We know for a fact that Meta trained on pirated material, and it's pretty obvious that everyone else does too. It's blatant industry wide flouting the law. The realpolitik answer here is everyone knows that enforcing the law here would be the final nail in the coffin for China superceding the West, so it's not going to happen.
It's not "sheer laziness". I can almost guarantee you that Instructure would prefer to e-mail the grade itself, and probably had the code working somewhere before feedback from universities told them to remove it.
There are absolutely cases where sending an e-mail to the wrong person is a violation of FERPA. Can you guarantee that your software will never be configured to accidentally e-mail someone besides the student? That no administrator will ever accidentally set up the wrong e-mail address? Because you're not sure if you can make that guarantee, it's legally safer to restrict it to the actual LMS login.
Yes, I have written software that would email a student information that was in scope for FERPA.
It’s rather simple to restrict sending email to @student.uni.edu and then further force their email to match the username and email address that is synced from the SIS.
How much FERPA compliant software have you written?
That's great for you. I've been in meetings with lawyers around FERPA compliance.
You are right that if you are creating a custom tool you can create that restriction easily.
But if you are creating a learning management system where administrators can configure it a million different ways and the university lawyers want to make sure that administrators don't set it up the wrong way, it makes sense to have that safeguard.
You are looking at the wrong level here. This isn't a software coding issue around technology. This is a policy compliance issue around people. When you create tools you have to consider the possibility of those tools being misused by an employee and mitigate those risks when possible.
I think the lawyers in a straw-man imaginary world where they say a university can't e-mail any FERPA-covered data to a student (which includes such basic things as what times a student's classes are) don't contribute anything to society. But that's because they're just a figment of one person's imagination.
Actual, real lawyers who work for or at real universities often do contribute quite a bit of valuable work. I enjoyed the one I worked with and think she did a great job of putting the brakes on over-regulating or using legal compliance as an excuse for just not doing work.
That's great to hear. As I agreed elsewhere in the thread, their true purpose is exactly to shield other workers from this sort of nonsense FUD and make-work.
Of course I presume it's also not a strawman because it's not in any way some unique thing to lawyers.
This, way too many people think they know the law and build up a wall of thinking based on their erroneous understanding of it. They're often afraid to incur the perceived expense of consulting an actual expert.
The same kind of broken thinking exists across MANY other aspects of life. Turn up the radio in your car to avoid hearing the problem that would be 'easy' to fix now and instead ignore it until it turns into a considerably more expensive repair.
I find it's often the same people that make these kinds of misguided decisions that crow the loudest about "kill all the lawyers". Perhaps because of their fear of being called out for their ignorance.
They have not made a ton of money yet, but they have turned the business around in a significant way. Where GameStop lost money every quarter from 2019 to 2023, it has now had 8 profitable quarters in a row.
The fact that investors are giving GameStop money is a good thing for GameStop; It is a signal of confidence. It is not a detriment like you try to position it.
They also just closed another 470 stores this year. Sales are half of what they were in 2019.
Basically they got a huge cash infusion from memestock hodlers trying to get to the moon. Greater than half of their profits are now from the interest on that money, which is wild.
However, the retail business itself is still failing because no one buys video games at the mall anymore.
It's not an answer to the question of a turnaround, and therefore low quality information? How much you have in assets does not correlate with the ongoing success of the business. Examining the day to day business of Gamestop and excluding the memestock shenanigans leaves a very bad business.
The core business has declining revenue - net sales 2016 $8.6b, 2025 $3.5b and still in decline. Cash flow from operations also continues to shrink.
Store footprint has shrunk.
The underlying business stinks, even if they made a ton of money selling stock, they haven't done anything significant to halt the spiral.
Perhaps a simple analogy would work here - you made $86,000 in 2016, and had a $6,000 surplus that represents your profit. In 2020 you made $50,000 and spent $5,0000 of your savings to stay afloat. You shrink your lifestyle. Now in 2025, you make $35,000 a year, and have a $2,000 surplus. There are no prospects for more income and you expect to earn $32,500 next year, and maybe $30,000 the year after. Would you consider this a turnaround for your finances?
Likewise, the company's revenue has declined ~60% in the last ten years, and declined 5% from 2024 to 2025. The business became marginally profitable when they shrank the business by reducing operating expenses and produced a small profit.
There are no significant avenues for growth in their current business model, revenue will continue to decline, as it has for the last ten years because the core model of re-selling used games continues to shrink. As revenue decline continues, they'll run out of people to lay off and stores to close, there will be no profit because the revenue is too small, and the company will BK.
There is no turn around, the company continues a death spiral.
You can see from the right hand column that many of those companies have delivered returns over the last twelve months, unlike GameStop. Also it appears many companies that don't have $9 billion are generating returns as well.
You seem to be making some of your statements as if they exist in a vacuum. The context is easily half the story.
For instance, do you know where that $9 billion in cash came from? It was not revenue I’ll tell you that much. Their revenue has been rapidly dropping, they’re shuttering stores, etc. They didn’t get that cash from successfully turning around operations.
One of my COVID projects was to set up a networked Time Machine backup on Raspberry Pi.
Every single one of the blogspam sites (lifehacker, howtogeek, etc.) told you to use AFP/HFS+/Netatalk. I had so many problems with this. Time Machine would work well the first few times and then slow to a crawl. If there was a power outage, look out. The whole thing would be corrupted. It wasn't the network. FTP and scp worked just fine.
Eventually I found one blog that told you how to do it with SMB and ext4. It was that site that I learned about the much malignment of AFP and HFS+. SMB/ext4 worked like a charm. Six years later and not a single hiccup.
They are compatible with netatalk though. The project split between version 2 and 3, but in recent releases they folded them back into a single thing. Current netatalk releases support all versions of AFP.
BPC157/TB5, IPA/CJC-NoDac, VIP, and Semaglutide (ozempic). Semaglutide was the most effective long term for autoimmune but the others really helped with CCI and other physical ailments. I take a combo of modafinil in the morning and amitryptiline at night as a treatment for dysautonomia and dopamine dysregulation. I started Low Dose Naltrexone and supplemental T3 hormone and this is a good place for most with hEDS to start with.
The worst for me was the chronic fatigue with a strong brain fog component, pretty much all of my symptoms have abated, I still have a residual general anxiety disorder and I still get post exertional malaise so I avoid doing anything that'll take my heart rate over 150. I had pretty much all the standard hEDS symptoms though not as much MCAS and I'm very hypermobile.
I've often used this in silly pseudo-proofs demonstrating that words have little to no value.
Given that a picture is worth 1000 words, a film (being a string of pictures) at 24fps is 129600 pictures in 90 minutes, and viewing a film might cost $15: a word can be rented for $0.000116 or at a rate of roughly 86 words per penny.
This also tracks well with paperback novels as 70k words would be a little over $8 and 100k words would be just under $12.
That said, I have nothing but the vaguest sense of what an average movie or book costs these days. Are movies $15? Does walmart still have the $5 bin?
What about books? I know that the last time I was in a book store I was somewhat shocked by the prices but that was years ago.
Although, the local used good probably still sells both media for $1/ea. If that's the case, there's an easy frugality argument in the 90 minute movie being worth ~130k words against most novels topping out under 100k.
