Computer Science for All, or Not

Whenever I see computer science compared to literacy, I have to kind of laugh. Being able to program will never be as important as the ability to read. While a basic understanding of coding could be very helpful, I don’t think it is even close to the same level as being able to read.

The biggest issues I have with the computer science for all movement is that it will subtract from somewhere else. Students already have tons of different subjects to learn about that I think are very important. There are some that I think could have less emphasis (I was never good at art), but in general, I think that most of the subjects that are taught are the right ones to teach and should continue.

This issue I think eliminates have too many computer science classes in high school and early on, but does not eliminate the idea of having an intro to computer science class to at least teach the basics. I think learning the basics of computer science could have really helped me when heading into college and have helped me pick my career path better. I am not the best programmer, but I think a quick computer science intro could have really helped me be better and understand the field more when heading here.

I think that the basics could really help but not much more than that should be taught in high school. One of the problems with comp sci is the lack of teachers. Teachers will never get paid as much as engineers in the industry. Since you need quite a bit of understanding to teach a complex subject like computer science to beginners, I think there will always be a lack of eligible teachers especially for the basics in high school.

I think a basic computer science class as a requirement makes sense in high school if you have the teachers to do so. I think it should be added in addition to everything else. While this puts more pressure on students, it is just one more class and I think the students will be able to survive. I think the class should mostly just be the basics in programming as well as a tiny bit of logic. I don’t think it needs to concentrate too heavily on any one part and should try and be fun for the students.

Before reading the articles I thought that anyone could do programming. I would love to see more of the analysis that says some students can’t code at all. I think that all students are capable of doing at least basic coding and while not everyone might be able to be really good, I think they can learn enough to get by. There is a big difference from being able to write extremely complex programs and learning the basics, but I think that having some amount of the basics would be good. I personally would only say that I have a grasp of the basics, but I think that it will be enough to serve me after I graduate since I don’t plan to code for a living. I learned a lot from my computer science education, but I do think it would be good if possible to have some exposure to it at an earlier time.

The Troll Among Us

The issue of trolling is a really complicated one that I struggle to decide where I even stand on. In my relatively short lifetime I believe that our country has become hypersensitive in a lot of ways. Saying just about anything can offend people and they will quickly send the lynch mob after you. I have said things in the past that have accidentally offended people or I just didn’t think out and have caused harm. It is not so much me being a bad person as some ignorance and some stupidity. Therefore I can understand the side which states that people should just toughen up and if you can’t handle a troll, don’t go on that area of the internet.

However, in other ways I can see how trolling is akin to bullying and should be stopped. The biggest challenge with trolling is where to draw the line. The gamergate articles shocked me and were very worrisome. That people would maliciously attack someone for pointing out what really is a flaw in gaming is both scary and sad. However, there is a difference from that and saying something that might not be the nicest to others, but is funny or shows a point. In general I view any trolling that is malicious and is intended to cause harm as unacceptable, but any that is done through ignorance and is not meant to hurt others in any way as okay.

Youtube comments are a scary place to be. The amount of swear words, insults, homophobic, sexist, and racist remarks are almost unbelievable. I think some of the worst parts of society are shown in Youtube comments. However, I don’t think that Youtube should have to spend money to monitor those comments. Unless a troll is directly attacking someone or a group of people, I think that the company doesn’t have to worry too much about it.

The trolls that really scare me are the ones that consistently choose to attack a single person or group and do so in ways that encourage self harm or violence. I think that having real names online will help to curb this sort of trolling as well as protect people.

I know that my stance is kind of in the middle and not hard for allowing people to say anything they want or for protecting people, but that is what I think is best. Some of the best advice I ever received from my mom was only write things on the internet that you wouldn’t mind your grandma seeing. I think if companies should at least try to make it difficult for trolls to target one individual and should protect privacy when they can as well as have users real names displayed if that will help to curb trolls. Similar to the privacy discussion my belief on anonymity is that I have nothing to hide and as long as I am somewhat protected, I don’t care who knows who I am and what I have said. I think this is an important stop-gap measure and while by no means perfect or flaw proof, I think it can help  to protect people from bullies and trolls that want to do harm online.

Automation and Globalization

Automation in combination with globalization is a very scary phenomenon. Automation and the power of software furthers the power of one individual to have a major impact on the world. Tech startups have the ability to leverage themselves to such a ridiculous point that they are worth billions of dollars even though there are only a few people that work at the company. However, this ability has consequences, especially when combined with automation. There is only a finite amount of wealth in the world, and if so few can have such a large impact, it means less income for everyone else.

Automation is able to increase the efficiency of a company, task, and almost anything else. This means McDonald’s will need less workers, and could have higher margins. This will help the corporate world, but could actually be detrimental to the working class. This means less workers and less people getting a piece of the pie. This could be a very scary proposition for a middle and lower class that has already been squeezed hard by the previous automation starting after WWII.

The middle class is on the decline while the rich are getting richer. I think automation and robotics will only continue this process. Fast food places, many restaurants, and most transportation could easily be automated in the next 20 years. This means millions of Americans could lose their jobs. A large proportion of the US populace could lose their jobs to automation in the next 100 years. This could lead to even larger problems with income inequality and destroy the American dream.

However, I think that new jobs and industries will pop up for the jobs that are taken by automation. In the same way that a hundred years ago we could never expect to have the computer revolution and the internet there will be something new that becomes the new industry. This won’t completely solve income inequality or provide full employment, but it will be a start.

I don’t think the Luddites are right. While innovation and automation will cause some loss of jobs, I think it will be a net positive. The standard of living will increase for most people and while the middle class might become smaller, I think in general the pros outweigh the cons.

I think automation in general is a positive and should be pursued. I think that automation in combination with a social and moral stance to help the poor and those that do not have enough can lead to a better world and be crucial for growth and the betterment of man kind.