This blog post sounds a lot like one we did before, which was about whether or not computer science courses should be mandatory in schools. My opinion since then has not changed. I do believe that everyone should be exposed or required to take a computer science class or coding class. I think that there are a lot of things that can be learned from taking these kinds of classes.
One of the biggest arguments against everyone to computing or programming is that, “focusing on coding inflates the importance of finding the ‘right’ method to solve a problem rather than the importance of understanding the problem.” They argue that instead of having children learn and truly understand the problem, we would only be encouraging them to get the answer. It’s sort of like having them only memorize the answers instead of truly learning the material for an exam. By just thinking of how to solve a problem with code, they think that people can lose sight of the why and nothing can be gained from that. They don’t think that computer science has anything valuable to offer. Obviously, as a computer science major, I disagree. The arguments for introducing everyone to computing are that it has so much more to offer than just coding skills. There’s an important distinction to be made though in this argument. I do think it is very important to make it clear that learning to code should not be the most important take away from those classes. Learning and understanding what code can do is what matters. It’s learning “computational thinking” that is what should be the main take away. One article made a very interesting point: not every cook is going to be Gordon Ramsay, not every writer is Shakespeare, and not every computational thinker has to be like Alan Turing. Just knowing how to do things like boil an egg and write an email can make life easier, and so will an understanding of computational thinking. Not everyone who takes computer science classes has to be like Mark Zuckerberg. Just like when people take a philosophy class, you know not everyone is going to be the next Socrates. But we emphasize the importance of taking philosophy classes because it shows you a different way of thinking, a different way of analyzing situations. Schools will face a lot of problems with the CS4All push. Let’s be honest, any person who graduates with a CS degree typically wants to go into the tech industry or academia (but higher end like college PhD level), not necessarily to teach middle schoolers computer science. With states like New York pushing deadlines for the CS4All (yay us!), schools are facing a lot of pressure to find teachers with these capabilities or train their teachers and educate them in computer science. I think computer science should be added as an elective to a typical K-12 curriculum. As an elective, it would not be replacing an existing subject. One of the most important things, I think, is making sure students of all backgrounds have the option and opportunity to study computer science if they choose. I believe that one of the best benefits of the CS4All program is that it would make computer science seem more accessible to minorities and lower class students. Making computer science as inclusive as it can be is, I hope, the ultimate goal.
0 Comments
The motivation for developing and building self-driving cars is to automate the whole driving process. Let’s be real, people are lazy. We would love the idea of taking a road trip somewhere, sleeping the entire way there, or watching Netflix and just chilling the whole ride. That sounds absolutely fabulous. We want everything to be as easy as it can be, that’s just a fact. If we can take that [driving] off of our shoulders, we’ll gladly do it. Companies like Uber and Lyft are huge advocates of self-driving cars for a whole different reason: money $$. By having all of its drivers be self-driving cars, Uber and Lyft would be saving so much money in the long run because they don’t have to pay the drivers for their work. Their bottom line would increase, especially with those insane surges and companies are all about their money!!
The arguments for self-driving cars are peoples’ laziness, but they’ll hide it by saying that it’ll prevent accidents and ultimately make the whole driving experience smoother (like traffic!). The arguments against self-driving cars are based off of people’s fear of putting so much trust on a machine. Would they make them safer? Maybe, I’m not entirely sure. One of the articles said that the drivers ‘drive like your vision-impaired grandmother’, so if the drivers are extremely cautious, then the roads might be safer. But will they be able to handle someone cutting them off all of a sudden? We have to realize that these self-driving cars are going to be out on the road with other drivers and some drivers are assholes. They’re not nice and they will cut you off. I just don’t know if they can handle the driving situation in big cities like New York City, which is terrible. The social dilemma is very interesting. I want my car to behave the way I would. Regardless of who I had in my car, I would do anything I can to avoid hitting a pedestrian, I think. Ultimately, the pedestrian has the right of way, all the time. So the driver is responsible. That’s the motto all New Yorkers live by. The economic impact for self-driving cars is going to be huge. Drivers who work for taxis like Uber and Lyft are going to be out of work and other people who take up driving to supplement high living costs and low wages are going to struggle as well. I doubt the costs of the rides are going to get lower. I think that there is a similar path to be taken with self-driving cars like with automation. There should be regulation of some kind but I don’t know what that would be. Maybe they should enforce a ratio that has to be maintain of drivers and AIs in driving companies? That way people are still hired and used, but they can still raise their bottom line. I do not want a self-driving car. I don’t think it’s worth it. Driving is not so bad! And I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to afford those self-driving cars cause I know they’re going to be hella expensive. Automation has had its impact in all sectors of industry. We see it prominently in the manufacturing sector because we hear it a lot on the news. We look at towns like Youngstown, who were the picture of the American Dream. The people in the town made money and owned houses. What more could they ask for? The average median income and homeownership rate were among the nation’s highest for much of the 20th century. But once World War II ended, things changed pretty quickly. When the manufacturing jobs shifted abroad, so did the jobs, and as a result, people were left unemployed with no way to make ends meet. With examples like this of what happens when jobs are taken, its entirely reasonable to fear automation. The whole idea of automation is replacing workers with technology who can do the work at no cost (besides buying it and maintenance care). Companies could save God knows how much money and isn’t that the goal for all businesses? Should they care about the people they are displacing and the economic impact it would have? I think so. I don’t think we should go as far as to halt the development of automation technology, but I do think that we should limit what jobs can be replaced by machines to ensure that there is employment of human laborers. Automation does not free humans for other endeavors. I mean, what would they do? A lot of times, the jobs that are being taken over by technology are jobs like cashiers or food and beverage servers. Typically, the people who have those jobs are not the most highly educated (in academic, degree terms) and what other jobs would they turn to?
Look, I’m not saying that all automation needs to be stopped. I’m a huge fan of self-checkout and if ever given the choice between going to a teller to get movie tickets or just going to a machine, I’m pretty much always going to go for the machine. It is what it is. But that doesn’t meet they can’t exist simultaneously. There are people who swear by the self-checkout at the grocery store, but others who absolutely hate it. I don’t think I can ever get behind the idea of artificial intelligence doing things like caregiving or creating artist works. I’m a firm believer that technology can never get the complexities and intricacies of the human mind and so things like creating art aren’t possible because they can’t put the emotions into the artwork (although don’t ever ask me what they mean cause that just goes over my head). Universal Basic Income is a tricky subject. In theory, it’s great. It provides a way to supplement everyone’s income and for those who are unemployed, it allows them to survive in this crazy economy. But it is super expensive to implement. I think there’s a delicate balance that exists where it can work, but what that is exactly, I don’t know. I think we just need to be aware of the impact of the increasing automation and ask ourselves if, in some areas, it’s really necessary. Like most things, automation is good in moderation. I believe that companies have a social responsibility to avoid total automation so that its workers are still employed. But maybe that’s just me being optimistic. Just wanted to throw this quote in here, cause its cray. “In the biggest picture, the job market appears to be requiring more and more preparation for a lower and lower starting wage.” It’s about damn time! I have been waiting and waiting to talk about Net Neutrality for a while now. We actually spoke about the topic in my class, Gender and Pop Culture, and Julianna and I were the peer experts for the day so we got to lead the discussion. Anyway back to the topic. Net Neutrality is the idea that all data has to be treated equally. It says that internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and Verizon have to treat all of the content that goes through their cables and towers the same. It cannot block or discriminate against any data nor should it show any preferential treatment to any data.
The arguments against Net Neutrality are that it actually promotes competition. Opponents of net neutrality state that if these huge telecom companies are forced to compete in a ‘truly’ free market, a lot of them will actually disappear. A Republican senator also claims that net neutrality hurt health care and helps porn. However, proponents of net neutrality state that it protects competition and promotes innovation. It makes sure that people’s voices are heard and that everyone has a chance to rise. I am a strong supporter of net neutrality. How would I implement or enforce it? Well that’s a little above my paygrade but I would just keep what we have with Obama. It was a good starting point and I honestly don’t know how else to do it. There are certain points we have to consider: the impact of getting rid of net neutrality. Internet service providers are largely run by white men. Companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast all have CEOs who are middle-aged white men. If this is who is in charge of the data flow, how are we to know that they won’t block or discriminate data that goes against their message? How can we know that they won’t jeopardize activist movements like BLM or Women’s Rights? Verizon has had a history of banning and censoring groups whose message they disagree with: in 2007, Verizon blocked NARAL Pro-Choice America, an abortion advocacy group, from its group text messaging program, but later repealed this decision after public outcry. This was before the Net Neutrality bill. Once net neutrality is gone, how are we to know that this won’t happen again? Net neutrality protects competition and innovation. Without it, services like Netflix and Facebook wouldn’t exist. Facebook replaced Myspace, which replaced Friendster, which, as John Oliver put it, replaced actual conversations and real friends. I can’t imagine a world without Facebook and NETFLIX! I love the internet services that exist today and to think that future companies will be hurt because net neutrality won’t exist is horrifying. Smaller companies might be affected by this because telecom companies will favor data from their partner companies. Also, this point is outrageous, “…the lack of broadband competition means that Americans pay more for slower internet access than in most other developed nations.” How is this even a thing? This week’s topic has got to be one of the most relevant ones so far, well at least for me and my friends. I’ll start off with Laura, who was ahead of the game on this and suspected this long before any of us did. I remember one day she told us that she mentioned wanting something out loud once, and then later that day, she saw an ad for it on a social media platform. When she told me that, I just kind of laughed it off. It seemed too much like 1984, too Big Brother-y. Plus it did seem too out there. How would they have known that? Were they accessing her microphone? It just didn’t seem likely. Until one day, I was talking to my other friend, Grace, about wanting to buy some shorts from Forever21. I opened my Instagram and what do I find there? A sponsored Forever21 post about shorts. I shared this with Laura and told her that ‘they’re listening!’ and she said, “they literally are i’m glad i’m not the only one this is happening to.” I’ll now jump into the readings and my thoughts on them.
The primary concern surrounding online advertising is what is being done with the data collected about each profile. Companies like Facebook are gathering information and mining for data from your likes, friends, statuses, etc. When they’ve accrued enough information, they are selling this information to other companies and vendors in order to create a more targeted, specific ad experience for the users. It’s insane the amount of information that can be gathered from what may appear to be completely irrelevant and innocuous things. Some people are aware of what is going on and feel helpless about it. They’re resigned to what seems like a common practice and can’t see a way that they can stop it. But I do think that a lot of people just don’t care. We are constantly giving away pieces of information about ourselves and never think twice about it. Because we are releasing such small amounts of information at a time, it seems like no harm can come from it. What can a company actually do with our ages and names, or our grocery purchases? It may seem like nothing to give away, but in the hands of huge companies, it’s a lot. When I read about Facebook targeting emotionally vulnerable and insecure youths, I was irritated. This is the problem with targeted online ads: when it becomes so pervasive and harmful. The fact that companies can target young adults who may feel insecure with products like diet supplements or make up products is outrageous. What companies have learned to do with data from profiles is amazing and scary. It’s a product that, like anything else, can be used for evil and can be exploited. It is important in moments like these to acknowledge the power that a system like this has and to prevent it from doing any harm. I think online advertising is fine when it is being used properly. If I fit the demographic of a store, then fine, show me their ad. But if I don’t like my body and you show me ads about surgeries and weight loss plans, no. That is an abuse of the system. I am guilty of using ad blockers. And to be honest, before reading the articles, I never really thought about the impact that it was having on the websites that I used them on. Ads are annoying and I just wanted to block them out, simple as that. I don’t think using it is illegal, but maybe unethical. I’m not sure. For smaller companies, I can see how using these blockers can be detrimental to their revenue, but for the big companies, I don’t really see how it can hurt their pockets being that they already make so much money. But I can see how using them can be the equivalent to stealing content, so maybe I think twice about using ad blockers. Maybe. When George Orwell wrote 1984, it seemed like a great dystopian society book, but everyone thought of it as just that, a book. I don’t think that in 1949, people would think that this could even be possible, let alone a reality. “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.” Telescreens everywhere, monitoring the private and public lives of the people. Propaganda films, military parades, and public executions. Seems like the stuff of books and movies, right? And everyone thought so for half a century. Until 2003. Until Edward Snowden. Until the truth came out.
In June 2013, all Americans were shocked. The United States National Security Agency was collecting the phone calls of millions of Americans. Unassuming Americans, people who were innocent of any serious crime, people who had no reason to be recorded. When Edward Snowden came across this information, he thought that it was his responsibility to inform the public of what was truly going on. He met with three journalists in Hong Kong, and over a period of several days, they published documents revealing the truth: that the government had been monitoring the private activities of ordinary citizens who had done nothing wrong. Did Edward Snowden act ethically and morally? That is a question with no right answer, I think. It’s a hard decision to make because the answer can change depending on which side you’re looking at it from. As an American, I want to know if the government is violating my privacy. I want to know if they are exploiting faults and vulnerabilities in the software to monitor my activity. And as a human being, I don’t want to be recorded and monitored without my consent. But if I think of it from the standpoint of security, I realize that this can be a way to get information about terrorist activity and that this has the possibility of preventing a major attack. In retrospect, it doesn’t seem like such a bad trade off, to give up a little bit of privacy for the sake of protection. Especially if you don’t have anything to hide. I think the biggest problem with this was the lack of transparency. If citizens were made aware of the measures that the government was going to in order to assure their safety, then maybe they won’t have as much of a problem. But then again, when you look at what the program has actually done and its results (it only foiled one terrorist plot which was a San Diego cab driver who gave $8,500 to al-Qaeda), it doesn’t really seem like a successful surveillance program. I don’t think that it has benefitted us because unfortunately, Americans don’t really care. Unless it is directly affecting their lives, people don’t usually know about it or don’t care. It hasn’t impacted me personally, however my thoughts on government, national security, and technology have changed. Before it came out, technology was just the thing I used and was what made my life easier. However, when it did come out, I realized the dangers of technology, how it can be misused, and the different avenues of surveillance it allows. I also realized that the government would put national security over the rights and privacy of their own citizens. And that is disappointing. In an ideal world, we can have total safety and total privacy. But we have to acknowledge that the two cannot co-exist. In order to have one, the other must suffer. It’s just a matter of us deciding which one matters more. Even if the technology industry truly was a meritocracy, it should still matter where the employees come from. If the company is based in, let’s say X nation, then the company should ultimately serve X well. A company that is based in America should make sure that it is providing American jobs. However, it is also important to acknowledge that it is in the best interest of America for the companies to succeed and do well because when they do, they are contributing more to the American economy and creating new jobs for other Americans. Companies should be free to hire the best, regardless of national origin. However, this is not to mean that the whole company can consist only of foreigners. It is also important to discuss the motive behind hiring people from other countries; is it truly because they are the best or because they are cheaper labor? If the reasons are because they are truly the best, then there should be no reason as to why companies shouldn’t hire them. The majority of the company should be Americans, but we should not eliminate the possibility of having foreign workers as it can potentially harm our status as a technically dominant country.
I do believe that companies have a moral and ethical obligation to their home country. If their home country succeeds, then it will only boost the morale of the company and improve their standing, both technically and monetarily. Money is important, but it is not above all. Yes, if companies have employees from other nations they are most likely going to be cheaper, but I think that companies have to be held accountable to their home country. Should nations prioritize the needs of corporations over individual citizens? I’m not sure. I think there should be a balance between the two because if you put one before the other, the other suffers and impacts the first. Dear Senator Todd Young,
We are writing to address our concerns about the H-1B visas. As you are aware, the H-1B visa was established to be used in situations when a job position could not be filled by a U.S. worker with equal or better qualifications. Companies have been known to use these visas to find cheaper labor, but this misuse of the visa program does not warrant its complete dismissal. There are many benefits to the continuance of the H-1B visa program. America is a nation of immigrants. It was started by immigrants, for immigrants. The plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty states, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” It is important that we not forget where we began. These H-1B visas enable people to rise above their current situations by giving them opportunities that they otherwise would not have. The narrative for H-1B visas is the same as any immigration discussion: immigrants are taking away American jobs. However, the validity of this argument is untrue. Adding immigrants to the pool of candidates for jobs increases competition, and we think that is good because we believe that competition and innovation go hand in hand. Once these ideas become a reality, new jobs are created for Americans. We need to recognize that retaining talented immigrants is in the best interest for the American economy. This is how we put America first. Another reason that we need to keep the H-1B visa program is to protect America’s status as a technically dominant country. We would be putting ourselves in a precarious position if we deny the help foreign workers can give to us and our economy. By removing foreign workers, we lose the ideas and drive they can bring to us. Instead of working with Americans, they will bring their talents elsewhere. Another country will be able to take this talent and utilize it themselves. Think about Apple, Amazon, and Google. What do all of these companies have in common? They were founded by immigrants. If they have ideas for new startups, they will take away what could have been thousands of American jobs. That being said, the program is obviously not without its flaws. There are some ways in which companies are abusing the privileges presented to them, and there needs to be reforms to the visa program to decrease these while still maintaining the competitive edge America has. There have been public cases in which American workers have been kicked out of their jobs and replaced by foreign workers. There has been at least one case in which American workers had to train their own replacements. This is a gross misuse of the program because the purpose of the H-1B visa program is to fill spots that are not otherwise being filled by American workers. To combat this, there needs to be stricter criteria to ensure companies actually have an open position and have looked to fill the job with American workers. Another problem is the lottery system currently in place. This needs to be re-evaluated because this actually hinders the American workforce since workers are being chosen at random and not for specific skills. Finally, the salary concern is a prominent issue that has arisen when discussing H1-B. There has been clear misuse in which companies avoid having to pay American workers the high salary which they deserve by paying immigrants less. If there was a salary system which took into account location and levels of experience, there would be less abuse. This reform would be beneficial to all; not only would it make companies more inclined to hire American workers, but it would also help immigrant workers earn the living they deserve. We hope you take into consideration our thoughts on this important issue. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Sincerely, Esmeralda Cervantes Laura Syers Melina Valencia Julianna Yee First of all, wow. I am not ashamed to admit that I am woefully ignorant of a lot of our space history. There are a few things that have stuck in my head, but this? This is not one of them, which is surprising. This is a fail of epic proportions. And on such a big stage! The Challenger set off on January 28. Just over a minute after liftoff, and a mere 10 miles above Earth, the space shuttle Challenger exploded over the Atlantic Ocean. The “orange fireball and billowing white trails” confused a lot of people who didn’t realize that that was not what it was supposed to look like. In the live CNN video, all you hear is the man from Mission Control stating, “Obviously a major malfunction” and “we have no downlink,” whatever that means. To confirm the obvious, he then said, “We have a report from the flight dynamics officer that the vehicle has exploded.” I, of course, was not there during the explosion, but the one thing I think everyone would agree with is that the sentiment was shock. How could something so huge fail so catastrophically? Everyone would assume that something so big would go through so many checks to avoid something like this from happening. But when you take the whole story into account, it doesn’t seem so hard to believe that something like this could happen.
The reason why the Challenger went boom is because of the failed O-ring. The seal failed on the rocket booster and because of the hole, a stream of hot gas was released and ignited an external fuel tank. There was evidence that erosion built up on the O ring seals and that the unseasonably cold temperatures during liftoff could have worsened the problem. It was recommended that they postpone launch until the temperature rose up to 54 degrees. However, with so many eyes on NASA, the managers were quick to dismiss a lot of concerns in lieu of sticking to the deadline. These NASA managers knew that the O-rings performed poorly under cold temperatures and suffered damage, but not enough to cause catastrophe. Instead of taking the time to redesign it, they classified it as an acceptable flight risk. Roger Boisjoly was ethical in sharing information with the public. He did his job by warning the managers that the O-rings used to seal the joints could fail at low temperatures. He warned that, “the result would be a catastrophe of the highest order- loss of human life.” And he was right. With others by his side, they took on the arduous task of trying to convince management that keeping the launch date would be dangerous, but they failed. It is utterly ridiculous for the company to have treated him the way that they did. While yes, I understand that business is business, I still have to believe that a shred of decency is to be maintained in business. That company should have known better than to ignore the warnings of its engineers. And it is unfortunate that this mistake had such a fatal consequence. Roger was just doing what any decent human person would. Whistleblowing is something that is needed, but difficult to actually do. It’s a hard task that a few people have to take on, but for the greater good of society, it needs to be done. People need to know the truth and with so many companies and executives trying to hide it, it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea to have a few people out there to help spread the truth. The fact that we are still questioning whether the lack of diversity present in the technology industry is a problem is sad. Can anyone, genuinely, in good conscience, say that it isn’t? Can they actually say that this is a reality that we just have to say? If that’s the world that we’ve come to, well then, it’s a shitty world. I won’t say that this is just a reality because then that means I’ve given up on making it a better place for future women. It means that I’m resigned to accept this fate and just adjust to it. And I won’t. I’m not.
The obstacles that women face every day just because of their gender is ridiculous. There are walls and hoops that are in place from the day that they are born that women will have to jump through the rest of their lives. Every day in the field, women face the possibility of sexual assault and harassment. Their work will be questioned, doubted, reviewed over and over again because they’re women. Their competence will not be believed because programming and coding is a man’s job. How could a woman ever be capable of producing the same results as a man in a line of work that is not theirs? Computer science is a gendered major. It has traits associated with it and a gender tied to it too. The field is thought to be made for a man: analytical, powerful, difficult, all things that are tied to masculinity. Gender stereotypes lead people to downplay a woman’s skill level. The problem needs to be addressed. But how is difficult to say. The root of the issue is in society itself and how it has gendered male and female qualities. From birth, women are taught certain things: how to act, to dress, to think, behave. We are told that certain things are ‘for boys’ while other things are ‘for girls’. By the age of 6, girls already start to think that they are not as smart as boys. Once we get to high school and college, these ideas and thoughts have taken root in our brain and we believe these things. We start to think that there are certain things we can’t do because we are women, because we aren’t made for it. It’s hard to go against something that is engrained in us for so long. It is this that we need to fight, that we need to challenge. Women should never have to doubt their capabilities because we are taught that. Minorities should never feel less than what they are just because of stereotypes that are perpetuated through mass media. The tech industry has to take steps to shorten the gender gap and the minority disparity. As a woman and a minority, it’s my unfortunate reality that I have to face. But I don’t want to. I don’t want to learn “the fine art of the three-quarters smile, as well as how to deflect conversation away from [my] personal life and return it to topics like sports and market strategy” or how to “distinguish between actual predators and well-meaning guys who were just a bit clueless.” That’s my reality. I have to learn how to smile so I don’t send the wrong message. I have to learn how to change the topic when a man starts to pry too much into my personal life. I have to learn who is a good guy and who is out to get me. The fact that that is my reality is depressing. Just because I am a woman, that is the life that awaits me. In my internship, I worked with two other male interns, one was a fellow computer science major, the other was a math major (let’s name them Bill and Joe, respectively). We had daily scrum meetings with our manager in India where we’d report with updates on our previous work and receive our next task. Bill and Joe were both constantly given much harder work than I was. Now Bill was understandable because he was a computer science major and he had plenty of previous internship experience at other big-name tech companies. Joe, however, was not. His previous role was as doing statistical analysis, and had no previous coding experience. Our project was entirely code based. He, a math major with no coding experience, was given more responsibility than me, a computer science major. Why? Bill wondered this with me because while he was doing his work, I finished mine and had to help Joe do his work too. This experience was frustrating because one person was damaging my experience with this company. He was questioning my ability. He put my education at risk because of some misguided belief that I could not to it. That’s why the story of what is happening at Uber is so frustrating. The fact that it is happening is frustrating. The diversity and gender problem needs to be addressed, and soon, so that no other woman needs to experience what so many from our generation and those before us have. |
AuthorJust a New Yorker trying to survive in the Midwest. ArchivesCategories |