ja2ke
"If we are to truly make progress in getting our students to understand the concepts presented in the Common Core to the depth intended we must help them learn to stop looking for a right answer and start looking for a right reason."
Talking to a lot of teachers it is often not the provided Core material that is the issue, but not having enough time to actually provide the structure and context to help the kids internalize why any of it is important. It's also not a surprise that is the case, given that at least where I live (California) the school year is measurably shorter and class sizes are measurably bigger than they were when I was in the same grades.
I've heard looking at the first person movement code for Valve's games will make you wish for your own death, but stripping out the weird stuff which looks ideologically wrong just makes the game play worse.
Not that there isn't precedent for their model. I remember being fascinated to read that the Big Mac and Ronald McDonald both came from local franchise restaurants, not corporate HQ. It's just a frustrating position to take. It feels short sighted.
A really cool fried who suddenly shows up for lunch in a suit, then eventually stops calling you. Your mom reads about them in a magazine and excitedly tells you what they're up to for a few years, then you stop hearing about them.
The Steam front page, though it may seem a little sloppy or insane, is extremely successful at pointing me to games I am interested in, at a cheap price. It's going to get weird, and very nebulous, if a copy of Adobe Premiere is up there in the hot picks slider along with Assassin's Creed 3.
Amnesia wants to use its interlocking game systems to make you feel afraid: You stay sane longer in the light. You have a limited amount of lamp oil with which to create light. Monsters make you insane (and kill you). Monsters can see you better in the light. Monsters make you go insane more quickly if you look directly at them (in the style of Lovecraft, gazing on things you should not see rend your mind).
The end result of this is a pretty wonderful set of rule balancing where, upon seeing a monster, the player immediately douses their lamp and hides in a dark corner staring at the wall, slowly going insane from a horror they cannot look at, knowing that looking at it will make them go truly mad, and turning on light for comfort will bring them a swift death.
It helps that on the art side, the visuals and audio are all built around creating and enhancing the mood, of course, but it's rare that there are a bunch of interlocking systems which can shape your behavior in a way that's that harmonious with an expected emotional output, a mood, tone, etc.
The game is rough around the edges and definitely created by a small team, but what it achieves is pretty rare.
I'd of course still be receiving benefits and taking up space on the mail server, and my desk would sit there unused.
"Home" being "EVERYTHING" is just a disaster. I want to see what the people I actually personally care about are up to first and foremost, and then I want to browse around to what the rest of the Internet is doing. Instead, everything is shoved down my throat all the time.
That's the other problem with this whole thing, I guess. Yelp's content is basicallu 100% subjective.
I'm fine with Basecamp Next being "not for me" right now because of that, but that doesn't mean I'm not a little disappointed.
(Sorry for no source on that.)
It's true that you can't play every genre of game on an iPad, but it's also been true for years that not every genre of PC game would play well on a mainline TV console (traditional adventure games, strategy games, and anything with a lot of diverse/unique user input or complex underlying systems tends to fail on a 360 controller/living room couch situation), and not every GameBoy/DS game would work well there either.
That aside, personally as a gamer I'm glad that there are game systems out there with nearly mutually exclusive input methods, because it prevents lazy ports, and lazy ports generally, basically, suck to play.
The problem across the board really seems to boil down to "megaplex chains are bad for movies." There are a lot of specific line items but they all end up sharing the common denominator of "this wasn't a problem until the rise of big box multiplex theaters."
I think the Internet revealed that the common denominator is not where you work (a newsroom, your bedroom) but that you're good at your job. That's all.
The dwindling great news organizations are like a good university -- you have amazing resources at your disposal, you are surrounded by peers who hold you to a very high standard -- so by that measure traditional journalists lucky enough to work at a place which still provides that infrastructure have a leg up. Internet journalism at its best has proven that that what those institutions offer at their height are merely great tools to get the job done, but they don't at all define what the job is. The medium, and even the resources available, don't make a good journalist. They can help, sure, but what makes a good journalist is being a good journalist.
Its a lame and simple point to be making, but it was a direct reply to the parent post.
---
To really get dicey... The parent post argued that the Internet has shown that everybody can be a journalist. I really strongly disagree, but I guess that's because it boils down to an argument about "what is a journalist." If "journalism" to you is "telling someone what you saw," then yes we are all journalists, Tweeting about our sandwiches! Imparting information concisely to your audience, fact checking, treating the information you're handed not as the end of the job --as information to be straight-up regurgitated-- but instead as the beginning --facts to confirm, stories to investigate, quotes to react to-- is the stuff that matters to me when the word "journalist" is applied to someone. That is a real, complicated thing that few want to do, and even fewer are good at, let alone "everybody."
Anybody can copy and paste a press release, anybody can provide a tip on what's happening around them spatially, but not everybody can be bothered to follow it up and make sense of it. Journalism is taking a ton of information, coupling it with original research, and synthesizing it down to something people can understand. You don't need a newsroom for that, nor does being on the Internet magically make you better at it. That's all I'm saying!