ninly

Article authors don't typically write the headlines that appear above their pieces.

Got it. Now, where is the car?

When I first went back to school for tech stuff (ultimately a master's in EE), my instructor for the entire calculus sequence -- and later on for linear algebra -- struck what I found to be the ideal balance. Something like:

0. Homework is never collected or graded, but don't be fooled into thinking it's not required -- that is, if you don't do the homework, you are extremely unlikely to pass the exams/course. Essentially, this is not knowledge we were learning -- it is skills that require practice. Homework is an opportunity to practice and hone skills.

1. Each lecture introduces a concept and/or technique, and works through a few demonstrative problems to show what it means or how it is done. Homework is assigned from textbook problems that involve the same techniques with progressive difficulty or complexity. The textbook used that pattern where odd-numbered problems included solutions, and assignments usually involved the ones with solutions.

2. The last one-quarter to one-third of every class period was dedicated to review and questions about the homework assigned for the previous class. Because we had the correct solutions in the text, we knew what to ask about (i.e. the ones we couldn't get to come out right). This particular instructor was fantastic at thinking on his feet and working problems on the fly, correctly and without preparation, so usually he'd just work the problem on the board and we could stop him to ask for a more detailed explanation if necessary.

Granted, this model didn't work as well for his linear algebra class. Since many of those problems involve long slogs through tedious and error-prone matrix operations before/while you were really dealing with the concept or technique being introduced, he couldn't as easily demo entire solutions during the question/review periods. I suppose that difficulty would apply to several other higher-math topics, as well, but even so, later in my education I often found myself wishing this or that professor would follow the pattern of my humble calculus teacher.

I think these things are changing, though I hope the changes come sooner than I suspect they actually will. I know there is ongoing discussion about how to bring rules more in line with modern practice and tech, such as the explosion of interest in digital operation over the past decade or so. I doubt this will reach to authorization of fully encrypted casual comms, though some form of encryption isn't out of the question when you get into the emergency comms piece of amateur radio, which is restricted from passing certain health and welfare information over the essentially "open line" of ham radio.

It's unfortunate that that was your experience. The VE experience does vary a lot from one region or group to another. I know there are VE groups that absolutely do better than this even with the conventional paper approach, make it a priority to do things efficiently, and make sure people can sit for all the exams they need/want during any given session. Also, for what it's worth, the entire study and exam process has been undergoing a lot of transformation, especially in response to the pandemic. I expect to see changes in this process, including expansion of online test opportunities, in coming years.

I agree, but would add the importance of #3. You can't transform/manufacture things without some process for doing so (or doing so more efficiently or effectively than was previously possible), and the physical means to this itself needs to be created/manufactured. It's 'tooling' and there's a kind of chicken-egg thing going on. Also related to the distinction between algorithms in the abstract sense and the infrastructure (software or otherwise) that enables their implementation.

The survival and progressive sophistication of human society and culture has always depended on the effective function of community-level values -- whether understood in terms of duty, honor, shame, mores, rule of law, or other mechanisms. Some influential portion of a population agrees (organically, culturally) that certain ways of behaving are more valuable (or unacceptable) to the community, even if not every individual necessarily agrees. This can obviously result in extremely non-free societal structures, as you suggest, but community at any significant scale will always require some compromise of individual freedoms.

This is necessitated by the very diversity of individual human proclivities and interests. To refer to the compromise, sacrifice, or diminishment of some of those interests as "oppression" strikes me as selfish and melodramatic, even if it is often regrettable from certain perspectives. Certainly sometimes it is oppression, and it is frequently unfair, but extreme individualism doesn't fix or even address this fundamental tension.

'indexes' has been a just-fine variant of the plural for a very long time -- actually it's the first one listed in Merriam-Webster, so probably the more common variant, though I haven't dug into other references. That said, you're correct that the more common or preferred variant will depend somewhat on the culture/community/industry. The house style guides in finance probably tend toward 'indexes' -- in part because an index is a branded product they produce, so consistency is important -- while software/tech companies (or at least people in them) may tend prefer 'indices'.

The "don't roll your own" argument isn't against having lots of encryption algorithms, though. It's because it's nearly impossible for a nonspecialist to implement tools that other specialists can't fairly easily recognize as broken and exploit (whether cryptologically broken or due to side-channel exploits).

I don't entirely disagree, but I feel like quotations are so often used in discourse without any context, and with a problematic sort of "pure" attribution to the genius of the person quoted. Quotations from Einstein or Lincoln are frequent examples of this, even where the quote is not misattributed.

Of course, blatant misattribution is also so dang common that it seems better to me in general to cite some kind of context or whatever. Plus (for me, a prior editor) use of quote marks typically implies verbatim, citable quotation, so that's a factor whether the attribution is "safe", as you suggest.

Not to criticize anything here at all; I just wanted to throw in some of that sweet sweet context!