An argument presented in this case is that increased pay to college athletes will incentivize them to spend more time on their athletics and less on their academics.
How convincing do you find that argument, applied to athletes in a) Top Tier D1 Football programs, b) D1 programs but for less hyper-commercialized sports (say track, or volleyball), and c) D2 or D3 athletes with little-to-no aspirations of a future in professional athletics
I think that argument is dubious and the money would only affect a very small subset of athletes. It would even be a small subset of football/basketball players. You would want to set up professional feeder leagues and give kids the option of going pro or going to school. Honestly a proper developmental league would go a long way to fix/alleviate many of the problems with college athletics.
This is how baseball works, and all the baseball players I met actively wanted to be in college. Some of them even turned down $100k-$500k draft signing bonuses to play college ball.
You have to maintain a certain GPA regardless to continue competing. Unless they're cheating in school, the incentive to study will be the same either way. If they are cheating in school, then they were never serious about the education in the first place.
Honestly the focus (or lack thereof) on education starts at home.
former D2 athlete here, never had aspirations to go pro. I don't think it's possible to spend "more time on their athletics" even at D2 level (can't speak for D3, though from my friends playing D1 it seems to be more time consuming).
my experience was waking up before the crack of dawn to pre-train, going to school in the morning, and then spending the rest of any free time I had after training (be it weights, cardio, practice etc). and then you watch film. all for the love (scholarships were nice) - so anyone that suggests there is more time to spend on athletics at these levels, and that paying athletes will somehow encourage them to do so vs academia, deserves a flan in the face.
I had the exact same reaction to it. Some enormous fraction of all non-fiction is an essay-length idea stretched out into a book length. It's disrespectful to the reader, but it's what they need to do to make a sale. No one wants to buy a pamphlet
Safety is a big concern, and a place to safely store your bike (at home and at work) is another big one. I'd imagine lots of the walkers live in condos or apartments where storing a bike can be really tough.
I used these lectures as a method for learning algorithms as a phys/mech eng with no CS background. I found them incredibly challenging but the lectures were written exceptionally well. On an internet with thousands of resources on this material, this was the very best I found.
Agreed, but jeans are really unattractive at the distances the author is riding. His circumstances are unfortunate, since the set of advice applicable to <5 mile rides is very different to his ~20mile trip.
Related, I'm very impressed by his speed. I ride about 9 miles to and from work and it takes me ~35-40 minutes door to door.
I actually think I am very fortunate TBH. I usually do the 30mi route through Portolla Valley in 1:30-1:45. During the summer it is the perfect commute.
If i go the direct route during rush hours I am faster with the bike than any other means of transport.
Honestly, I am surprised not more people do it. With electric bike now, yiu can be flying. Even at my best effort, i can only keep up with the ebikes for a couple of minutes
Maybe you're misremembering? This is what Chief Justice Rehnquist said,
Speaking for myself, I think it does make
a difference: In a significant minority of
the cases in which I have heard oral
argument, I have left the bench feeling
differently about a case than I did when
I came on the bench. The change is seldom
a full one-hundred-and-eighty-degree swing,
and I find that it is most likely to occur
in cases involving areas of law with which
I am least familiar.
-- Rehnquist, William H.. The Supreme Court
(Kindle Locations 4154-4157).[1]
Especially as politics and the law has become more partisan (ideologically if not according to party), of course oral argument will be less likely to change the ultimate judgment. But in a caselaw system as ours reasoning is nearly as important, and sometimes more important, than the particular judgment. Just look at the way the Federal Arbitration Act jurisprudence has played out. The most recent decisions are utterly divorced from the text and history of the relevant legislation and only make sense if you track the chain of reasoning in the preceding caselaw.
[1] I found that citation elsewhere and bought the Kindle book for the actual text. The original citation I found cited to page 243 of the print edition.
How do state broadcasters fit into this theory? The CBC and BBC produce content in a similar style to the for-profit broadcasters (better, but definitely similar in more ways than its not), but without the advertising mission.
Not always - the BBC was mentioned above and they are far less politicised than many of the other U.K. news outlets. It is argued that any bias comes from the demographic of those who want to work there rather than political pressure from above. A good local news source that is government funded, Radio New Zealand, would fall into the same catagory in my opinion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
This is a very dismissive comment. Many of my peers in grad school were developing finite element techniques - it's a huge area of active ongoing research. Getting realistic results is very tough in an application with non-linear materials (probably looking at anisotropic composites) and possibly fractures like this.
I recently read and enjoyed the essay version. Would you recommend the book? Specifically, did you feel that the amount of depth in the book necessitated that format as opposed to an essay?
I'm frequently disappointed by really good ideas that could be presented in a dozen pages being stretched to occupy 200 (e.g. Deep Work)
Unfortunately, I found the book version to stretch the concept much too far. He was able to include far more description of how to find pleasure working on physical things, which I thoroughly enjoyed. But it definitely drags when he gets into the philosophical justifications.
Neat! I built a little mobile robot that uses omni-wheels[1], a related style wheel. Build report here[2] (forgive the lousy website, I'm a mech guy just starting to learn software)
The wheels allowed some neat driving tricks, but it also made it really difficult to drive in a straight line. You don't get the normal tracking behaviour that wheels give you, and differences in traction from wheel to wheel also tend to distort your course. Adding a gyro for use in a closed-loop angular control system really helped this a lot.
