Ci1: The Gov/Military has used that site for years for multitude of reasons. I actually had a transportation management class once years ago where they used the satellite overlay as part of teaching infrastructure planning.
Ci0: This is just awesome. The speed correction to make it more lifelike from the high frame rate is just amazing. There is so many possibilities here, @jaybird keeps talking about VR, imagine having a history class where they colorize, speed correct, and add ambient noise to films like this and a history student can "physically" be in the environment of 1911 NYC and even interact with it. All the historic events, even if just old newsreels, could be repurposed in an amazing, productive way.
Someone more expert than me can comment but I did run across two interesting points while reading earlier. The 2017 basic cable viewership can be found here
But the real story on cable is this: in the first quarter of FY2017, Netflix surpassed major cable operators in subscriptions. All of them. Combined. And Ad revenue is falling as subscriptions get more expensive, and depending on whose numbers you believe is either getting ready to or already is underwater. Cable is coaxial in a bluetooth world.
They are actually filming a documentary based on it. Patton has been on social media heavily all day about, you can understand his connection to it all. I didn't include it in the post but its an amazing story. You can find his Twitter timeline here.
I know its really complicated issue but I wonder if the bottom line isn't rather simple. There is more schools, sports, and content than is going to be consistently consumed by the public on a one-time live broadcast. I know Netflix is having this debate right now about "how much content is too much content" and came down on the side of invest heavily and make as much content as you possibly can. Live sports is different, you are only getting that game or event one time. Its much more limited in revenue potential than a show that can be streamed in perpetuity. If the demo for sports keeps contracting and skewing older as it is now, a lot of people are going to get left holding the bag when the rights money drops.
There is a point to be made here also: The broadcasting rights deals for the major sports are very long, so although streaming has taken over entertainment, in-place rights deals means there has not yet been a major adjustment, yet. As those package start coming up we will learn a lot more. Also there is a long running issue of viewership in general: sports is super regional, how do you get viewership when the local team isn't playing? The NFL had been mostly immune to that but there are signs that is waning, and there is quite a bit of data that sports as a whole genre is declining in viewership and also skewing older. But regional sports broadcast continue to do amazingly well in market, so solving the puzzle of that kind of regional ratings and ad revenue porting over to a universal streaming model will be fun to watch.
You make an excellent point. The reconstruction era is so overlooked and understudied part of our history but so important to how our nation developed. Too many people make a leap from civil war directly the turn of the century, and miss a lot of causes and reasons for things that developed.
I grew up very much around people who honored and in many ways idealized the south. My opinion on this was different for two reasons. First and foremost having a father who was a history teacher by trade helped quit a bit, but secondly and perhaps just as formatively, living in Germany. Seeing how that country went from enemy to friend and how they teach their past to their children. There is no "lost cause" that permeated how I grew up and thought of the Civil War era. They are taught evil men took advantage of economic collapse and social unrest and the people failed to recognize or stop the manipulation and became complicit in it, and millions died because of it. Large swaths of our country are not taught that about the Civil War.
Those that argue that preserving the Confederate monuments/statues is a matter of history want it to be the history they prefer to believe. The Forrest statue is a good example: proponents will say its a memorial, and true Forrest and his wife's remains were moved to the location, but not until 1904 and the statue was installed in 1905. Like the majority of these statues, they were put up during a time when, a generation removed from the actual war and with those that lived it fading into history, many wanted to change the historical narrative. It took many forms, such as what we now call Lost Cause beliefs, to emphasize the "honorable" struggle against long odds for rights and de-emphasize slavery. But it isn't true, its a monstrous lie that generations of folks have bought into totally and made part of their identity. Not every soldier standing in the line for the Confederacy was there to save slavery, but the leadership and vast majority rebelled against their country to keep the horrid practice institutionalized. The wickedness of it is enshrined for history to judge in the Confederacy's constitution, documents, papers, and actions. So if some want to argue "heritage not hate" fine, lets have that conversation. Because trying to rewrite the history to absolve the south created a lot of hate for generations since. We cannot have mob violence pulling them down. But do it legislatively, make leaders and lawmakers put their names on it. History should know them and where they stood too.
I updated to post to include this. I'm mildly surprised. See if anything occurs later once attention is off. This same school and president handled a similar situation previously like this, then allowed that persons contract to quietly expire without renewal. Still, for the moment, chalk one up for free speech, heinous as that speech was. Right call.
Its a nice little rhetorical/thought device to pull out, and applicable to many things isn't it.
I think historically we have somewhat over-romanticized protest and their effectiveness. If we honestly look at history, what was the last protests that actually accomplished a tangible policy/law change? Has there really been one since the Civil Rights Movement? The LQBT community perhaps could claim that, although much of their progress was judicially through the courts before public opinion and laws shifted to their favor. But its a short list, if there is a list at all. The civil rights marches worked because the contrast of non-violence displayed the aggression and ugliness of those they resisted, very different from "in-your-face, smashing the target" of some today. In the new era of fundraiser-driven politics, marches and protest are as much big business as they are movements for change. All the more reason to be careful what we march for.
I actually ended up discussing SCI01 with a friend separately, who unlike me is a scientist (research Neurologist) that I like to discuss such things with, so I'll condense a few of his comments for the group:
Good stuff. I would agree that there is just too much to know in any given field, so more specialization and more researchers are needed to advance a given branch of science further.
In my field, we know so little that I disagree about advances being less but I lament the slow progress. We get eager for treatments and we need money to address this but we also need more funding for basic science - such as understanding Alzheimer’s dx. This unfortunately does not profit well directly - “priceless.”
This chunk from part 2 generated caused me to flag for later reading/research:
The throw money at it tendency. Many companies have responded to competition by “adding human resources and other resources to R&D,” the authors note. They add that there may be “a bias in large companies to equate professional success with the size of one’s budget.”
Investors and managers are now questioning the throw money at it tendency and seeking to slash R&D costs, according to Scannell et al. They add: “The risk, however, is that the lack of understanding of factors affecting return on R&D investment that contributed to relatively indiscriminate spending during the good times could mean that cost-cutting is similarly indiscriminate. Costs may go down, without resulting in a substantial increase in efficiency.”
Every year comes with obtusely written propositions that obfuscate more than they illuminate, are often conflicting, unconstitutional, and a waste of time and resources.
Just wanted to highlight that amazing sentence seperate from the debate at hand. I enjoyed it.
Frankly I'm better with delivery people with my car than around my home. Having worked at a ops supervisor at a transportation company I assure you drivers dislike going to peoples doors for a variety of reasons. There is an element to this where Amazon really has in mind daytime delivery to peoples places of work, schools, ect. The idea is most of those are congregated public areas and you are delivering to a relatively concentrated area as opposed to sprawling suburbs or scattered rural areas. Its convenient for the customer, but Amazon is doing it to help business. This is also setting up for when they launch their own delivery in a few years; if this works it'll be an integrated part from the start. I'll listen to the argument some are making over privacy, but these are not random people, Amazon has well covered liability on their end, so if people want to partake why not.
One thing, and this isn't just privilege it can apply to many things, is we all talk about finding common ground, ect. but often that involves biting your tongue through a few things in order to get to that level of the conversation. If we fly off into warrior mode at the first offensive thing the assumptions start and communication stops. If you can bear a minor slight, or two, you might find a decent person that wasn't meaning offense and then you can get to real issues.
But there is a point at which where when everybody else uses a term one way and you’re the person using it differently, you’re the one not using it the way that everybody else is.
To Jaybirds point it reminded me of something when I was doing the old "teach the teacher" training stuff: If a discussion devolves into debating what the terminology means no one is learning the lesson.
One thing about privilege when used in this context is if we aren't careful, the term itself just becomes another stereotype it was coined to address in the first place. Things like wealth, social standing, race that are obvious to all are the surface of people. Family dynamics, upbringing, quality of education, environment they grew up, things like that are much harder to know. Beyond that their are personal issues, mental health, secrets, things no one knows. I think its a worthy conversation and important topic, but in daily application I personally try to the best of my ability to still take people one at time and try not to categorize anyone as best I can. We all have biases and prejudices, respect in how we treat people is the filter that keeps those in check.
The mental health pros would have to help with this one, but where is the distinction of a true "suicide by cop" and person who perpetrates a heinous act and plans on the responding LE relieving them of having to answer for their actions? To me both morally and practically those are two very different things.
Rare is the person who is privileged in all ways. But that requires us to move past debating the definition and into discussing how it applies to us a individuals.
More of that, less trying to just jam complex human beings into hashtagged catagories.
I do appreciate your thoughts and having read it. Kazzy raised a good distinction between fair and wrong that really deserves to be fleshed out in longer form. And I think that such a distinction is important when you bring in what is "civil" in addressing it. If we game out a grievance to its conclusion I think the revolver theory of life is a good application here: you only have 6 bullet of righteous anger to use from now till death-is this issue worth one of those bullets. If not, keep it civil and work within the system. We are too quick to call for burn it all down and kill all the heretics over things that do not rise to that level. Making something that is personally unfair to us into a larger issue than it warrants can be the first step on that road, so it is worth talking about and discussing. Some things call for outrage and marching in the street. But few; most of the rest just need the grunt work of advocacy, but get memes instead.
On “Morning Ed: Cities {2018.04.26.Th}”
Ci1: The Gov/Military has used that site for years for multitude of reasons. I actually had a transportation management class once years ago where they used the satellite overlay as part of teaching infrastructure planning.
Ci0: This is just awesome. The speed correction to make it more lifelike from the high frame rate is just amazing. There is so many possibilities here, @jaybird keeps talking about VR, imagine having a history class where they colorize, speed correct, and add ambient noise to films like this and a history student can "physically" be in the environment of 1911 NYC and even interact with it. All the historic events, even if just old newsreels, could be repurposed in an amazing, productive way.
On “Morning Ed: Sports & Games {2018.04.25.W}”
That's a good question, something for someone with a network subscription to delve into.
On “Tech Tuesday 4/24/18 – Post-Phoenix Edition”
You and the good Dr would get along, very similar thoughts on many things.
On “Morning Ed: Sports & Games {2018.04.25.W}”
They have done one off, fully paid for shows in the Middle East for years, this is just the first one that they are broadcasting.
On “Double Dare Returns, But Kids TV Is Not What It Used To Be”
Someone more expert than me can comment but I did run across two interesting points while reading earlier. The 2017 basic cable viewership can be found here
But the real story on cable is this: in the first quarter of FY2017, Netflix surpassed major cable operators in subscriptions. All of them. Combined. And Ad revenue is falling as subscriptions get more expensive, and depending on whose numbers you believe is either getting ready to or already is underwater. Cable is coaxial in a bluetooth world.
On “Morning Ed: Sports & Games {2018.04.25.W}”
Politics and media is the real Kayfabe now...
On “Golden State Killer Suspect Arrested”
They are actually filming a documentary based on it. Patton has been on social media heavily all day about, you can understand his connection to it all. I didn't include it in the post but its an amazing story. You can find his Twitter timeline here.
On “Morning Ed: Sports & Games {2018.04.25.W}”
I know its really complicated issue but I wonder if the bottom line isn't rather simple. There is more schools, sports, and content than is going to be consistently consumed by the public on a one-time live broadcast. I know Netflix is having this debate right now about "how much content is too much content" and came down on the side of invest heavily and make as much content as you possibly can. Live sports is different, you are only getting that game or event one time. Its much more limited in revenue potential than a show that can be streamed in perpetuity. If the demo for sports keeps contracting and skewing older as it is now, a lot of people are going to get left holding the bag when the rights money drops.
"
There is a point to be made here also: The broadcasting rights deals for the major sports are very long, so although streaming has taken over entertainment, in-place rights deals means there has not yet been a major adjustment, yet. As those package start coming up we will learn a lot more. Also there is a long running issue of viewership in general: sports is super regional, how do you get viewership when the local team isn't playing? The NFL had been mostly immune to that but there are signs that is waning, and there is quite a bit of data that sports as a whole genre is declining in viewership and also skewing older. But regional sports broadcast continue to do amazingly well in market, so solving the puzzle of that kind of regional ratings and ad revenue porting over to a universal streaming model will be fun to watch.
On “Tennessee’s General Assembly Sure Is Concerned With Keeping Racists Happy”
You make an excellent point. The reconstruction era is so overlooked and understudied part of our history but so important to how our nation developed. Too many people make a leap from civil war directly the turn of the century, and miss a lot of causes and reasons for things that developed.
"
I grew up very much around people who honored and in many ways idealized the south. My opinion on this was different for two reasons. First and foremost having a father who was a history teacher by trade helped quit a bit, but secondly and perhaps just as formatively, living in Germany. Seeing how that country went from enemy to friend and how they teach their past to their children. There is no "lost cause" that permeated how I grew up and thought of the Civil War era. They are taught evil men took advantage of economic collapse and social unrest and the people failed to recognize or stop the manipulation and became complicit in it, and millions died because of it. Large swaths of our country are not taught that about the Civil War.
"
Those that argue that preserving the Confederate monuments/statues is a matter of history want it to be the history they prefer to believe. The Forrest statue is a good example: proponents will say its a memorial, and true Forrest and his wife's remains were moved to the location, but not until 1904 and the statue was installed in 1905. Like the majority of these statues, they were put up during a time when, a generation removed from the actual war and with those that lived it fading into history, many wanted to change the historical narrative. It took many forms, such as what we now call Lost Cause beliefs, to emphasize the "honorable" struggle against long odds for rights and de-emphasize slavery. But it isn't true, its a monstrous lie that generations of folks have bought into totally and made part of their identity. Not every soldier standing in the line for the Confederacy was there to save slavery, but the leadership and vast majority rebelled against their country to keep the horrid practice institutionalized. The wickedness of it is enshrined for history to judge in the Confederacy's constitution, documents, papers, and actions. So if some want to argue "heritage not hate" fine, lets have that conversation. Because trying to rewrite the history to absolve the south created a lot of hate for generations since. We cannot have mob violence pulling them down. But do it legislatively, make leaders and lawmakers put their names on it. History should know them and where they stood too.
On “Barbara Bush, Randa Jarrar, and the Outrage of Free Speech”
I updated to post to include this. I'm mildly surprised. See if anything occurs later once attention is off. This same school and president handled a similar situation previously like this, then allowed that persons contract to quietly expire without renewal. Still, for the moment, chalk one up for free speech, heinous as that speech was. Right call.
On “If Conservatives Want to be Heard, Stop Whining About Unfair”
Its a nice little rhetorical/thought device to pull out, and applicable to many things isn't it.
I think historically we have somewhat over-romanticized protest and their effectiveness. If we honestly look at history, what was the last protests that actually accomplished a tangible policy/law change? Has there really been one since the Civil Rights Movement? The LQBT community perhaps could claim that, although much of their progress was judicially through the courts before public opinion and laws shifted to their favor. But its a short list, if there is a list at all. The civil rights marches worked because the contrast of non-violence displayed the aggression and ugliness of those they resisted, very different from "in-your-face, smashing the target" of some today. In the new era of fundraiser-driven politics, marches and protest are as much big business as they are movements for change. All the more reason to be careful what we march for.
On “Tech Tuesday 4/24/18 – Post-Phoenix Edition”
I actually ended up discussing SCI01 with a friend separately, who unlike me is a scientist (research Neurologist) that I like to discuss such things with, so I'll condense a few of his comments for the group:
This chunk from part 2 generated caused me to flag for later reading/research:
On “Yes California? #Calexit Returns”
Just wanted to highlight that amazing sentence seperate from the debate at hand. I enjoyed it.
On “Amazon Key: Next Big Thing or Bridge Too Far?”
Frankly I'm better with delivery people with my car than around my home. Having worked at a ops supervisor at a transportation company I assure you drivers dislike going to peoples doors for a variety of reasons. There is an element to this where Amazon really has in mind daytime delivery to peoples places of work, schools, ect. The idea is most of those are congregated public areas and you are delivering to a relatively concentrated area as opposed to sprawling suburbs or scattered rural areas. Its convenient for the customer, but Amazon is doing it to help business. This is also setting up for when they launch their own delivery in a few years; if this works it'll be an integrated part from the start. I'll listen to the argument some are making over privacy, but these are not random people, Amazon has well covered liability on their end, so if people want to partake why not.
On “The New Girl”
*whispers* that is why they invited it as a way of explaining the state, accompanied with a "by God" between the West and the Virgnina...
On “When Schools Get Political, What Should Teachers Do?”
One thing, and this isn't just privilege it can apply to many things, is we all talk about finding common ground, ect. but often that involves biting your tongue through a few things in order to get to that level of the conversation. If we fly off into warrior mode at the first offensive thing the assumptions start and communication stops. If you can bear a minor slight, or two, you might find a decent person that wasn't meaning offense and then you can get to real issues.
On “The New Girl”
You can also do it with ease right handed. Just saying.
On “When Schools Get Political, What Should Teachers Do?”
To Jaybirds point it reminded me of something when I was doing the old "teach the teacher" training stuff: If a discussion devolves into debating what the terminology means no one is learning the lesson.
"
One thing about privilege when used in this context is if we aren't careful, the term itself just becomes another stereotype it was coined to address in the first place. Things like wealth, social standing, race that are obvious to all are the surface of people. Family dynamics, upbringing, quality of education, environment they grew up, things like that are much harder to know. Beyond that their are personal issues, mental health, secrets, things no one knows. I think its a worthy conversation and important topic, but in daily application I personally try to the best of my ability to still take people one at time and try not to categorize anyone as best I can. We all have biases and prejudices, respect in how we treat people is the filter that keeps those in check.
On “Toronto Van Attack, Reported 10 Dead, 15 Wounded”
The mental health pros would have to help with this one, but where is the distinction of a true "suicide by cop" and person who perpetrates a heinous act and plans on the responding LE relieving them of having to answer for their actions? To me both morally and practically those are two very different things.
On “When Schools Get Political, What Should Teachers Do?”
More of that, less trying to just jam complex human beings into hashtagged catagories.
On “If Conservatives Want to be Heard, Stop Whining About Unfair”
I do appreciate your thoughts and having read it. Kazzy raised a good distinction between fair and wrong that really deserves to be fleshed out in longer form. And I think that such a distinction is important when you bring in what is "civil" in addressing it. If we game out a grievance to its conclusion I think the revolver theory of life is a good application here: you only have 6 bullet of righteous anger to use from now till death-is this issue worth one of those bullets. If not, keep it civil and work within the system. We are too quick to call for burn it all down and kill all the heretics over things that do not rise to that level. Making something that is personally unfair to us into a larger issue than it warrants can be the first step on that road, so it is worth talking about and discussing. Some things call for outrage and marching in the street. But few; most of the rest just need the grunt work of advocacy, but get memes instead.