There's a web site where different people share what they think of each course, and how many hours they devote per week:
https://www.omscentral.com/
That might help you decide whether it's doable.
My first (and only) course was somewhere in the middle in terms of effort, and the courses I was most interested would have required another 50% on top, which wasn't going to work for me, between work, parenting, other learning etc.
OMSCS requires ten courses to graduate. I completed one course (with an A grade) before realizing that, even at a pace of one course per semester, it was not a high enough priority for me to devote the time required to do each course well.
That course was great, though, and I definitely learned some things I'm glad to have learned!
IMO the instructional materials are a small part of the value. The things that stood out to me were:
- the assignments
- the autograding of programming assignments
- giving and receiving peer feedback about written assignments
- learning some LaTeX for those assignments
- having an artificial reason (course grade) to persist in improving my algorithm and code [on the problems taught in that course, I wouldn't have been self-motivated enough if they were just things I came across during a random weekend]
The ability of OMSCS to scale paper writing, review, and grading with real human TAs is nothing short of astounding. While it's a ton of work (I'm just completing class #5) it's a great resource for both learning the material - and how to communicate it effectively.
at the very least in my state (Illinois), it's not lawful for public bodies to disclose the license plate numbers read from ALPR cameras, so this data set is necessarily incomplete
It's not a dataset of license plate numbers read from ALPR cameras. It's a dataset of license plate numbers that have been entered into search tools.
Enter a license plate to see if it's one of the 2,207,426 plates seen in the 27,177,268 Flock searches we know about.
I commented before realizing that someone else already made the same point earlier, and you already explained that the law covers more than what you mentioned in your first comment.
Many developers do this, and it's explicitly allowed under Apple's Developer Agreement (section 3.3.1).
Interpreted code may be downloaded to an Application but only so long as such code: (a) does not change the primary purpose of the Application by providing features or functionality that are inconsistent with the intended and advertised purpose of the Application (b) does not bypass signing, sandbox, or other security features of the OS; and (c) for Applications distributed on the App Store, does not create a store or storefront for other Applications.
The app store review guidelines (section 2.5.1) seem more narrow, but I think the above is what's enforced.
Weird, because Apple took down Fortnite for enabling a direct buy-button (bypassing IAP) after review completed. Just because an offending feature wasn't enabled at the time of review absolutely does not mean you're in the clear to turn it on after the review is complete. Whereas before you'd get the opportunity to fix anything like that during the review process, by sidestepping the review process you'd better be confident you don't ever ship anything that wouldn't pass.
I'm curious whether you were able to build the app using backend APIs that were already built, or whether building this app created new requirements for those APIs?
I actually did have to end up creating most of the backend APIs myself too or with the help of fellow engineers at HCB! What I like about HCB Mobile is that I'm not only creating a mobile app but also expanding our API infrastructure to allow for future integration with our platform.
That's great to hear your son is starting at such a young age! From my personal experience I would recommend focusing more on the concepts (which Python helps with as the syntax is easy to navigate!). Project-based coding is my ideal way of learning as you build things you are truly proud of. I remember when I was young and made my very first Python turtle drawings. Once he turns 13, I highly recommend him join the Hack Club community. Hack Club is our parent organization and its dedicated mission is to help teenagers interested in coding. I believe I wouldn't be where I am today without it. It truly helped me become a better programmer and Hack Club even offers free prizes that help you learn even more such as a Raspberry Pi for those who submit their incredible projects :) Hope that helps! Always down to help if you have anymore questions
You misunderstand how neurodivergence is be handled in education. It isn't a single diagnosis, and does not have a single accommodation. We use a catch-all word because it makes it easier to talk about as a collection of issues, but that's not how it's diagnosed or treated.
If you would find wearing noise blocking ear muffs, or sitting on a bouncy chair, or using a typing instrument instead of writing, improves your performance on a test, then yes that should be permitted.
(I do also think it would be a good idea if people had longer for many tests or tests had less on them. That kind of speed is rarely an important part of real world workplaces so those tests are rewarding low-value skills.)
"If you would find wearing noise blocking ear muffs, or sitting on a bouncy chair, or using a typing instrument instead of writing, improves your performance on a test, then yes that should be permitted."
The thing these examples have in common is that they don't give you any inherent advantage that invalidates the purpose of the test. (Assuming it's not a handwriting test, or an 'ignoring distractions' test.)
I would group all of these along with the examples I gave: corrective glasses, and wheelchairs. They should be available to all students, without diagnosis or discrimination.
If you think limited time on tests doesn't serve a useful purpose, then why give 'extra' time to only some students, and not to all students?
Your point about Stanford having a larger-than-average proportion of 'extremely gifted' kids is reasonable. Perhaps the smartest 20% at Stanford are drawn from the smartest 0.1% nationally.
But I think you're too dismissive of this part:
The professors Horowitz interviewed largely back up this theory. "You hear 'students with disabilities' and it's not kids in wheelchairs," one professor told Horowitch. "It's just not. It's rich kids getting extra time on tests."
You said "One person in it claims the kids aren’t really disabled because they don’t have wheelchairs" but this is a straw man. The professor did not say this.
If you read the statement charitably, the professor only pointed out two things that are probably true, which I paraphrase below:
- most people, when they hear about students with disabilities, imagine physical disabilities
- the professor has seen that a sizable proportion of students classified as disabled do not require accommodations
Now, we could argue about what are reasonable accommodations and which are not. This is where I'm interested to hear your perspective.
I assume you are in favor of these two:
- kid needs wheelchair and a ramp, so kid can attend class
- kid needs glasses, so kid can see the whiteboard
I assume you are not in favor of this one:
- kid cannot find the derivative of 2x^2, so kid is allowed to use a CAS calculator for Calculus 1 exams
What do you think about this one?
- kid can pass the English Composition 1 exam, but only if given twice as much time as other students
There's a difference in kind not degree to the two sets of questions.
It's the difference between someone giving me a ride to work and someone doing my job for me. If the the point of the Calculus class is - ugh, it's been awhile for me so I might be messing this up - to teach the power rule or the thing being taught in English class is how to write a cogent essay in a set period of time then giving a student a calculator or more time is doing the job for the kid.
If they're incapable of doing the work why are the in class? Maybe there's a different class that's more appropriate for them?
So it sounds like you agree with me that, for an English Composition exam, all students should receive the same amount of time. Is that correct?
But now I'm wondering:
- if someone's typing speed is slow due to arthritis or an identifiable condition, shouldn't they get extra time?
- if someone's typing speed is slow just because they never learned to touch type, should they get extra time? after all, the exam is meant to be testing English composition, not typing.
The second hypothetical is to me less interesting. Presumably typing in this class is pre-requisite. This to me is much closer to "do my work" then "drive me to work" ; though the work in question isn't the class itself but instead the pre-requisite.
The first is getting right at the nub of thing. I think accommodations should be made but the worst accommodation is one that would advantage anyone not just a person with a condition that could hold someone back.
So - to switch hypotheticals to one that I was thinking about for no reason - you would give Stephen Hawking a speech synthesizer in Physics 101 not more time. Any student would like more time but no one able to communicate would be interested in a speech synthesizer.
That would be my version of fair in any case. Is it possible? I don't know and the incentives involved would (as I think a lot of people would agree) be pushing towards the worst kind of accommodation.
I am attempting to ascertain where you draw the line.
I offered examples that I presume we agree on, on both sides of the line.
Then I gave an example where we might disagree.
If you feel my questions are 'cartoonish straw man questions' then that of course is your right.
However, I want to make it clear that:
- you mischaracterized the quotation from the professor in the article
- I would honestly like to understand (i) whether you agree there is a line to be drawn between things that correct for impediments that are irrelevant to the competency being tested, and (ii) where you would draw that line.
If the manner in which I've written my questions makes it seem like I have any intention other than to understand your position more clearly, I apologize.
Tangent as you mentioned boosted high frequencies on tapes...
It's possible (likely) that those prerecorded cassettes had boosted high frequencies because they were intended to be played on a deck that supports Dolby B noise reduction, and will do the reverse operation to get the level back to where it's supposed to be.
Dolby B noise reduction didn't actually reduce noise at the source. Instead:
- During recording: Boost the volume of high frequencies (where tape hiss is most audible)
- During playback: Apply the inverse.
When you reduce the treble during playback, you're reducing the hiss along with it, but the original signal (which was boosted before) ends up at the intended level. This improves the signal-to-noise ratio in the high frequencies.
This is similar to the RIAA equalization curve used for vinyl records.
- During mastering: Reduce bass, boost treble.
- During playback:The RIAA phono preamp applies the inverse curve—boosting bass and reducing treble.
IIRC the reasons for the RIAA curve aren't just about improving signal-to-noise ratio, but something about the physical limits of vinyl.
I think it's a pretty reasonable wish for more macOS + Apple Silicon support of games, including more native FEX & Proton ARM support within the steam client. (We're lucky Steam works, it's a better games client than the Mac App Store dreams to be, but that's also not saying much either.)
Apple Silicon has no UEFI support except as provided by Asahi, so that would be needed at a minimum to boot Windows 11 natively. Then there's the whole issue of having native Windows drivers for the Apple Silicon-specific hardware.
You’d run FEX with WINE/Proton, no windows needed. If you did use a VM, I’d think it would be a Linux VM. But, Linux VM on macOS could already use Apple’s Rosetta2 for x86_64-to-arm64 translation.
Speaking of which, maybe you could just run the games with Apple’s WINE “game porting toolkit” direct with Rosetta2. Worth a Google.
That might help you decide whether it's doable.
My first (and only) course was somewhere in the middle in terms of effort, and the courses I was most interested would have required another 50% on top, which wasn't going to work for me, between work, parenting, other learning etc.
reply