Traditional methods are failing because of austerity and capitalism. Pedagogy is a science which has expert studying these things. And most teachers are well aware of the science and know what works. Stuff like instant feedback has been known to work better since behavioralism in the 1950s. Problem is that whenever these solutions are applied they are used to cut corners and make education cheaper, resulting in a net loss. This is a problem of austerity.
Note that I was explicitly not blaming this on Khan, I was merely stating that he is the face if this movement and as such will get a lot of the blame, regardless of how much he deserves it.
My personal feelings about him is that he is actually an excellent teacher, and has independently discovered what pedagogical scientists have known for decades. He however allowed his discoveries to be packaged as a neat capitalist solution, and then has watched as his “discoveries” were used to excuse austerity (and made a bunch of money doing so). At best he is naive, and at worst he is an active participant. Either way he deserves at least some of the blame (though personally, I would rather blame the system, and point to him as being a part of it)
Personally I like books, but there are also many, many lecture videos on YouTube, some of them excellent (though I think they could still be better with bigger production teams and higher budgets). For college-level technical subjects, there are also e.g. many MIT lectures on OCW. If you have a specific topic in mind, I urge you to search around. (Making a long list of my own book/website/video recommendations about various topics here seems a bit off topic and out of scope.)
MIT has renumbered the course, but it's still around: https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.824/ . Don't be fooled by the URL; it's now 6.5840.
And a series of lectures is available too: https://www.youtube.com/@6.824/videos . They're from spring 2020. They link to the course website for spring 2020, which is great. But it doesn't link to them, and OCW doesn't know about any of this, as far as I can tell. The 6.824 lecture series is pretty hard to discover, too, because it's uploaded by an account dedicated solely to that one course, which isn't related to any other MIT lecture videos.
From your OCW link, you can see the Spring 2006 version of the course has syllabus, lecture notes, readings, lab assignments, and 2 quizzes available, but no videos. Separately, videos of the 2020 version of the course are on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrw6a1wE39_tb2fErI4-W...
That kind of algorithm doesn't show you anything besides the messages in your inbox. It's never making a decision to show you X instead of Y, it's just deciding the ordering in which you see them.
Modern social media is choosing from a vast pool of content and the algorithm's entire goal is to maximize engagement for monetary gain (at whatever cost to society). There's only so much "engagement maxing" you can do with an email sorting algorithm especially if the premise for an email inbox is that you'll always only ever see your emails and nothing else.
There are already a couple of answers for standard male programs, but if the male programs such as Gmail pushes up content to your inbox, save from Google then yes, that would be an algorithm that would qualify. I would really argue what you are describing is a filter rather than a content algorithm.
Images on cigarette packages are of real patient and real impact and still smokers ignore it. A fake, stylized hypothetical image will have much lower impact.
Are you saying that fake, stylized hypothetical image will have much lower impact reducing the impact of all the fake, stylized hypothetical images in Facebook?
Maybe they should insert disgusting slices of actual carcinogenic lung tissue into boxes of cigarettes, since images of them aren't impactful enough.
That would be harder for smokers to ignore, and it would make the cigarettes harder to light, worse smelling and tasting.
reply