56 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Jul 2019
    1. At the design stage, when you discover problems, you can fix them easily by editing a few lines of text. Once the code is written, the cost of fixing problems is dramatically higher, both emotionally (people hate to throw away code) and in terms of time, so there’s resistance to actually fixing the problems. Software that wasn’t built from a spec usually winds up badly designed and the schedule gets out of control. 
    2. In general, the longer you wait before fixing a bug, the costlier (in time and money) it is to fix.
  3. Jun 2019
    1. principles

      a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

  4. May 2019
    1. I published the Level manifesto with great fanfare: The War on Developer Productivity (And How I Intend to Win It).

      Quite a fascinating and interesting way to kick-off such endeavor. This can act as a major source of encouragement for giving one's 100% to the purpose. Of course, avoiding the risks of over-committing without periodic self-examination.

  5. Apr 2019
    1. A Vision for Scholarly Communication Currently, there is a strong push to address the apparent deficits of the scholarly communication system. Open Science has the potential to change the production and dissemination of scholarly knowledge for the better, but there is no commonly shared vision that describes the system that we want to create.

      A Vision for Scholarly Communication

  6. Mar 2019
    1. This page is meant to demonstrate what personalized learning 'looks like' and that seems to mean the principles or characteristics that it has. This page relates to kids, not adults, but the principles mostly seem relevant to adults just as much as kids. I do not know enough about this topic to evaluate the information quality, but the aspects I can evaluate, such as the writing and presentation, seem to suggest at least moderate credibility. rating 2/5

  7. Jan 2019
    1. For example, there is no need for Ministers to consider the environmental principles policy statement in the development of pensions legislation, where there is not likely to be any significant environmental impact.

      Hmmm. would we argue that there could/should be limits placed on - for example - investment here to prevent financing fossil fuels etc?

    2. These Explanatory Notes relate to the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill as published in Draft on 19 December 2018 (Bill Cm9751) damage. xRectification at source principle: Environmental damage should as a priority berectified by targeting its original cause and taking preventive action at source.xPolluter pays principle: The costs of pollution control and remediation should beborne by those who cause pollution rather than the community at large.xSustainable Development: Development that meets the needs of the presentgeneration without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirown needs.xIntegration principle: Environmental protection requirements must be integratedinto the definition and implementation of polices and activities.xPublic Access to environmental information: Individuals should haveappropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held bypublic authorities. This can include information on the state of the environment,but also on policies or measures taken or on the state of human health andsafety, where this can be affected by the state of the environment.xPublic participation in environmental decision-making: Individuals should beable to participate in environmental decision-making processes.xAccess to justice: Individuals should be able to effectively access judicial andadministrative proceedings, including providing redress and remedy forcitizens.These principles cannot be changed without primary legislation.

      primary leg needed for change

    3. Ministers of the Crown will consider the environmental principles in developing policy by having regard to a corresponding environmental principles policy statement published by the Secretary of State.

      have regard to formulation seems especially weak when expressed like this...

  8. Nov 2018
    1. ಅರಿತು ಜನ್ಮವಾದವರಿಲ್ಲ ಸತ್ತು ಮರಳಿ ತೋರುವರಿಲ್ಲ.ದುರಭಿಮಾನವ ಹೊತ್ತು ಅಘಟಿತ ಘಟಿತವ ನುಡಿವಿರಿ.ಈ ದೇಹವಿಡಿದು ನುಡಿವ ಪ್ರಪಂಚಿಗಳನೇನೆಂಬೆ ಗುಹೇಶ್ವರಾ.
    2. ಅನ್ಯದೈವ ಭವಿನಾಸ್ತಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ, ಪಾದತೀರ್ಥಪ್ರಸಾದವಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಬಾಯಿದೆರೆದಲ್ಲಿ, ಲಿಂಗಕ್ಕೆ ಕೊಡದೆ ಕೊಂಡಲ್ಲಿ, ಆ ವ್ರತಕ್ಕೆ ಆಚಾರವೆ ಪ್ರಾಣವಾಗಿರ್ಪ ರಾಮೇಶ್ವರಲಿಂಗ ದೂರಸ್ಥನಾಗಿಪ್ಪನು
  9. Jun 2018
    1. If we can’t make it safer then we can acknowledge the remaining risks and educate users about them.
    2. Non-technology folks can contribute to building consentful tech by:• Holding the platforms we use accountable to how they use our data• Advocating for consent-focused policy and legislation • Intervening in development processes through community organizing (petitions, demonstrations, etc.)• Signing on to platforms that are consentful • Learning more about code, policies, and legislationTech folks can contribute to building consentful tech by:• Advocating for diverse teams• Opening up design & development processes to people who those who are vulnerable to harm• Working towards a culture of consent in our companies and organizations• Mentoring newcomers, particularly those who are often excluded or marginalized from mainstream tech communities• Growing our knowledge on concepts like collaborative design processes and intersectionality • Consistently reviewing our development processes
    3. Can people consent to Specific things in this system and not others? Can people select which aspects of their digital bodies they want to have exposed and have stored?
    4. Are people Freely giving us their consent to access and store parts of their digital bodies? Can potentially harmful personal information about a person be displayed or stored without their consent? Does our system allow for Reversible consent? How easy is it for people to withdraw both their consent and their data?How are we fully and clearly Informing people about what they’re consenting to? Is important information about the risks a user might be exposed to buried in the fine print of the terms & conditions?How are we making sure that the consent is Enthusiastic? Is there an option not to use this technology, which means that people use it because they prefer to use it?
  10. Apr 2018
    1. your future success depends on developing a new kind of expertise: the ability to leverage your proprietary knowledge strategically and to make useful connections between seemingly unrelated knowledge assets or tap fallow, undeveloped knowledge.
    2. Your competitors will have access to the same kinds of data and general industry knowledge that you do.
    3. It’s a vote of confidence in the company’s capacity to protect enough tacit knowledge to stay ahead of the competition.
    4. will make more money if more people build on the platform he has provided
    5. The ease of knowledge sharing is directly proportional to the degree of knowledge codification
    6. speeding up codification will increase the value of knowledge
    1. Companies that figure out how to manage this complexity will enjoy a powerful competitive advantage in finding and selecting innovations.
  11. Mar 2018
    1. Yes, absolutely. In fact, I would go further than that. I am sure that we could provide the evidence not only in terms of international obligations but in terms of Article 191, where all these things can be found. However, let us do that trade and see where the gaps lie, and perhaps we can make some progress on that basis. Certainly, we would welcome any opportunity to iron out some of the differences that appear to exist.

      response on possible changing of amendment at report stage

    2. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, we are not asking for anything more; we are just asking for what is in the existing provisions. We are just trying to put it into language that most people would be able to understand and not tie it up in legal knots.
    3. I thank the European Environmental Bureau for this—with the headline, “Precautionary in principle, flawed in fact: European Commission review accepts environmental groups’ criticism of chemical regulation”.

      This is a bit worrying because them pushing for further regulation is making the countess argue against REACH - need to counter: "but I also ask that we do not mirror the behaviour of the REACH organisation and that we tighten up our own principles and make sure that we get it right."

    4. On Amendment 113, the secondary legislation made using the powers under Clause 7 will be subject to parliamentary oversight, using well-established procedures. This amendment would require us to make all the regulations within one month of Royal Assent. This would not allow time for stakeholder consultation and would also not allow sufficient time to make all the SIs—noting that affirmative SIs take longer than one month to be laid and made.

      Is this right? is the amendment impossible?

    5. Amendment 66 also goes further than the existing principles set out in EU and UK law today. In particular, it would introduce a new power for courts to declare provisions in primary or secondary legislation to be incompatible with the environmental principles. This power does not currently exist in either EU or UK law.I will go a little further. The precautionary principle is included in, for instance, the REACH regulation and the invasive species regulation, so it will be preserved by the Bill in those areas. Similarly, the polluter pays principle, referred to by a number of noble Lords, is referred to in the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017, which will also be preserved by the Bill. EU case law on chemicals, waste and habitats, for example, includes judgments on the application of the precautionary principle to those areas, which will, likewise, be preserved by the Bill.The purpose of the Bill is to convert and preserve the law so that after exit it continues to operate as intended. This includes many of the directives referred to, such as the wild birds and habitats directives, as transposed through domestic legislation. It is not appropriate for the Bill to introduce new powers of this kind.   Share this contribution Lord Deben   Share this contribution My noble friend has explained that some things are already there. Can he give me an undertaking that if we were in consultation to remove from this amendment anything that is additional to where the European Union now is, he would accept this amendment? That is the issue. If we were to do that, would he accept the amendment?   Share this contribution Lord Callanan   Share this contribution I cannot give an assurance that we would do that. This is about legal certainty—taking a snapshot of existing laws and transferring them into UK law as it is. It is not about creating new powers within the Bill. There will be a further opportunity to discuss this when we publish our proposals for the new body.   Share this contribution Lord Deben   Share this contribution I have not said “new powers” or talked about creating legal certainty. He keeps using that phrase. I merely said that if we amend this so that there is no additionality to what is already in European law, will he accept that as an amendment?   Share this contribution ​ Lord Callanan   Share this contribution If a new amendment is put forward, of course we will look at it and consider its legal implications. I can give that assurance.

      But it refers to them at EU level, no? Chance of an amendment at report stage that isn't ambitious enough based on these commitments?

    6. The points he made on the archaeological issues are of very great importance indeed, and it is crucial—I speak as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries and a former vice-president of that body—that these points are taken into account.

      again, archeological influence

    7. Here in your Lordships’ House we are very fortunate to have a considerable number of noble and learned Lords who give us the benefit of their expertise. I have noticed that they often disagree, and very strongly. Therefore, surely keeping these issues in the Bill would save an awful lot of legal time and legal argument and would be better for the Government. I say that in a spirit of total helpfulness and support.
    8. It is now well established that the scheduling of ancient monuments and the listing of historic buildings, valuable though they are for the most conspicuous sites, are insufficient to protect rural landscapes and historic town centres. Indeed, planning authorities regularly make the provision of prior archaeological investigation a condition for the granting of planning consent for developments, whether for roadworks, motorways or new buildings.Archaeological concerns are enabled and can be met by the application of environmental principles, which are codified in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. These principles provide safeguards against adverse policy change and provide a basis for legal challenge

      archeological arg again

    9. On Amendments 66, 112 and 113, I simply say that, if the Government are sincere in their stated commitment —as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said—to uphold all the environmental commitments that we are signed up to and to uphold the spirit of the transfer of EU law into UK law, they should have absolutely no hesitation in supporting all these amendments.
    10. I shall speak to my Amendment 67A

      relating principles to food production

    11. our current position on the common agricultural policy. It was introduced before some of these environmental principles were refined and used in European legislation. As a result, we are now in the ridiculous position where the polluter pays principle would have helped us, as taxpayers and as water company customers and payers, avoid paying farmers twice. We are paying water companies to pay farmers to stop doing something that, as taxpayers, we are paying farmers to do. The polluter pays principle, had it existed when the common agricultural policy was first set in place, would have been a hugely valuable way of preventing that very wasteful situation.

      interesting linking of polluter pays principle to improving EU legislation

    12. you cannot understand the law unless you understand the principles. That has always been the situation. All we are saying is: let us make our law understandable by the principles to which we have assented and to which, we are told, the present Government wish to continue to assent.
    13. The vital issue is that the environment needs to have a framework within which people can have confidence that their interests will in fact be met. In the past, we have had the framework of the European Union. The Government say we can have just as good a framework outside the European Union—well, this is the framework, and there is no reason why they should refuse it.

      nice quote

    14. I found the presence of EU law, particularly on bathing waters and water quality, extremely helpful. It was not always easy to convince my colleagues that we really did have less good drinking water than much of the rest of the European Union. They rather took my mother’s view, which was that the reason that people had bottled water in France was because their ordinary water was unacceptable. There was a general view, much promoted in the Daily Telegraph, that there was no need for improvement. I have to say that there was need. There was even more need, as Surfers Against Sewage made clear, to do something about our appalling bathing water standards. We were, after all, in much of the country pouring unreformed ordure—I do try very hard to use phrases that the Committee will not object to—into the sea. We were able to change that, not, I may say, without very considerable difficulty and arguments about the price and cost of doing it. It was within a context of EU law, and not just precise pieces of law but the context in which we accepted certain standards and values to which we could refer when it came to making our own legislation.

      value of EU law to conservative governments in the past

    15. on 29 March 2019 key pieces of legislation such as the environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental directives will be transposed ​into domestic law, with the aim that planning policy will continue to function as currently. However, the Bill does not directly reference some important overarching principles established in the EU treaty, potentially weakening environmental protections which underpin planning-led archaeology

      interesting lobbying move from the archeologists here...

  12. Jan 2018
  13. Jun 2017
  14. Mar 2017
    1. Learning to complete a whole task involves 4 levels of instruction (preferably modeled):

      Effective instruction should engage students in all four levels of performance: the problem level, the task-level, the operation-level, and the action-level.

    2. First Principles of Instruction

      Click here to see more detailed description of the First Principles of Instruction.

    1. FIRST PRINCIPLES OF INSTRUCTION

      An Elaboration of the First Principles of Instruction.

    2. Much instructional practice concentratesprimarily on the demonstration phase and ig-nores the other phases in this cycle of learning.

      Yes, and also demonstration which is decontextualized, has not audience, no stakeholders...

    3. Many current instructional models suggest thatthe most effective learning products or environ-ments are those that are problem-centered andinvolve the student in four distinct phases oflearning: (a) activation of prior experience, (b)demonstration of skills, (c) application of skills,and (d) integration of these skills into real-worldactivities.

      (a) activation of prior experience (b)demonstration of skills (c) application of skills,and (d) integration of these skills into real-worldactivities

    4. Principle 1—Problem-centered: Learning ispromoted when learners are engaged in solvingreal-world problems.

      In my experience, this is a very powerful principle for learning.It can provide many variables that are not present in traditional learning environments:

                   * Authentic context
                   * Complex problems  
                   * Real stakeholders
                   * Authentic feedback from real stakeholders 
      

      Solving real-world problems can naturally lead to inter-disciplinary work and high levels of motivation if the student is allowed to pick a real world problem that is important for them.

    5. Five firstprinciples are elaborated: (a) Learning ispromoted when learners are engaged insolving real-world problems. (b) Learning ispromoted when existing knowledge isactivated as a foundation for new knowledge.(c) Learning is promoted when new knowledgeis demonstrated to the learner. (d) Learning ispromoted when new knowledge is applied bythe learner. (e) Learning is promoted whennew knowledge is integrated into the learner’sworld.

      nice...

  15. Feb 2017
  16. Sep 2016
    1. In order to discover the hidden principles of another way of life, the researcher must become a student

      To discover hidden views one must become a student while local people from the area you are studying becomes the teacher, the ethnographer tries to learn about how certain things identified the people

  17. Jun 2016
    1. 29/ But big picture, the range of possible futures for humanity depends on our individual and collective ambiguity tolerance. 30/ Ours is an age of low ambiguity tolerance and a hunger for one determinate future for all. Resist! Increase your ambiguity tolerance. Help keep the future indeterminate!

      How to break smart--increase your ambiguity tolerance.

  18. Jan 2014
    1. One day I was talking with one of our best engineers, an employee I’ll call John. Before the layoffs, he’d managed three engineers, but now he was a one-man department working very long hours. I told John I hoped to hire some help for him soon. His response surprised me. “There’s no rush—I’m happier now,” he said. It turned out that the engineers we’d laid off weren’t spectacular—they were merely adequate. John realized that he’d spent too much time riding herd on them and fixing their mistakes. “I’ve learned that I’d rather work by myself than with subpar performers,” he said. His words echo in my mind whenever I describe the most basic element of Netflix’s talent philosophy: The best thing you can do for employees—a perk better than foosball or free sushi—is hire only “A” players to work alongside them. Excellent colleagues trump everything else.
    2. Despite her work ethic, her track record, and the fact that we all really liked her, her skills were no longer adequate. Some of us talked about jury-rigging a new role for her, but we decided that wouldn’t be right. So I sat down with Laura and explained the situation—and said that in light of her spectacular service, we would give her a spectacular severance package. I’d braced myself for tears or histrionics, but Laura reacted well: She was sad to be leaving but recognized that the generous severance would let her regroup, retrain, and find a new career path. This incident helped us create the other vital element of our talent management philosophy: If we wanted only “A” players on our team, we had to be willing to let go of people whose skills no longer fit, no matter how valuable their contributions had once been. Out of fairness to such people—and, frankly, to help us overcome our discomfort with discharging them—we learned to offer rich severance packages.
  19. Sep 2013