It reminds me of an algorithm that gives teachers negative feedback, even if the teachers are positive.
I understand your feeling, but what is the advantage of an algorithm is that it has no personal opinion. If Student X looks a bit sexy and clicks good with the teacher, the teacher often gives the student the benefit of the doubt, and / or vice versa. I certainly do not want to ridicule those who are educated here. But of course they are just sentimentalists too. You can not turn it off. It does not matter how much you prioritize your professional opinion.
For some reason for this, I am 100% in favor of standardized things like CITO tests. The standardized tests are the same for everyone. Of course there are those who are bad at taking tests / exams for any reason. They really fall by the wayside here, which is a shame. But if we look at the general class, you can see that it is a neutral judgment. For example, for individuals who are poor at performing tests, there should be an adaptive (standardized) test, but also a standard one.
I still remember very well what a student in my education was told “you say, but it’s not”. This is definitely very tough. The teacher knew that the student knew the answer from what was written, but could not express it well (enough). So it’s not good. ‘ But the teacher in question, did he do it to a student with a good click / link? It is difficult to determine whether. (NB I have no ‘active reminder’ Whether there was a good or bad relationship between teacher and student)
Automation is the next fatal blow to the working class.
You are talking about the “next murder”. This seems a bit paradoxical. A manslaughter is defined / ended.
I think you are referring to the previous ‘massacre’ of mechanization that took place in the ‘Industrial Revolution’. That revolution took away a lot of work (automatic looms, moving parts of machines up and down or turning screws). On the other hand, that revolution has brought great prosperity to the whole population (certainly considerably more in the select group than in the larger groups). The revolution caused population change and, to some extent, increased health (for humans and animals) so that people and animals could no longer do dangerous and unhealthy work.
Do not forget that this revolution was the result of the Industrial Revolution, in which people began to work for wages instead of doing their own things. (They started to specialize and instead everyone started doing everything for themselves). In that revolution, people chose to work for someone so that they could get more wealth with less risk and expertise.
In this age of automation (i.e. making mechanization more efficient / better) of course, more jobs are being lost. If in the ‘past’ someone typed the completed form into the computer, now the system will read and process the forms. It is more efficient and accurate than those who did this. Jobs will be created again. I still do not know what kind of jobs will be created. We all make more, consume more and more, and produce more, but want everything less and less. That trend exists, and if that trend is to continue, it must be automatic, otherwise it is not possible.
More people will soon save time because their job is no longer there and those people may be motivated to do something else, thus creating new business and thus creating jobs again.
Except what a disgusting company Amazon is:
Below the line, Amazon offers a service the public has been waiting for. A lot of people think that it is more important for Amazon to get their products for less money, instead of treating its employees well. This does not seem like a secret.
People can go to the local box pocket to get a set of Pokemon cards, but prefer to do so with just a few clicks on the website. That means you do not have to go to such a dull box busher. (In practice there are many stores. There are very few stores that understand what employees are actually selling)
In the meantime, I’m already done sharing cars, scooters, Ubers and AirBnB in this world. The only “problem” they can solve is to fill the wallets of these millionaires.
The services you refer to are precisely the examples I mention above. The companies in question offer a service that the ‘public’ is openly waiting for. The fact that there are only a few people who are rich with the right idea at the right time is definitely not a bad thing. (Look at the young man who created the first comparison site on the landline phone with those telecom farmers many years ago (you have to type in a kind of ‘prefix’ on your phone to call heartily by that other provider).
“Award-winning beer geek. Extreme coffeeaholic. Introvert. Avid travel specialist. Hipster-friendly communicator.”