A driverless vehicle doesn't require me to add a driver to reach a destination. A serverless solution doesn't require me to add a server to achieve the goal. Something is still driving the car, something is still serving the data. But it's out of my hands.
I disagree. I think that what college offers is more than an increase in salary. For hyperbole’s sake, you could use the argument of ‘my trust fund is already paying me more than your median graduate’s full-time job’ and most would roll their eyes at such a statement.
Try talking to someone who's worked a few decades as a Development Officer at a major university. Would they want their institution to be associated with Mr. "I will never need to actually work" Trust Fundee? Or with a real-world proven entrepreneur & business management prodigy?
FWIW, with a 42% admission rate, donor-related applicants are 7 times more likely to be admitted to Harvard than other applicants. Based on this, I would say they tend to want to be associated with people who already have money, regardless of what they may say.
If the wealth "in play" is merely a trust fund large enough so that the applicant can live modestly without ever working, they won't care. (And any "I don't need to work" argument would be a huge red flag.) Similarly - I cannot give my grand-niece a 7X boost on getting into Harvard by donating $1,000 to Harvard.
Vs...if I was a billionaire, and ask a Harvard Development Officer about my grand-niece getting admitted to Harvard, then I could get her far more than a 7X boost.
You've either never spoken to people in development or didn't understand what they do.
For one, they aren't involved in admissions at all.
Their goal is to make long term relationships so that both sides, the donors and the university get something out of it. Not to judge people based on where their money or connections come from.
Development people have influence, and definitely want future financial success stories moving smoothly through their university's admissions pipeline.
Getting money that way isn't impressive, though. But surely there's some value to someone who's, presumably, intrinsically motivated to attend for some reason. That thing everyone born on the treadmill fakes being.
The friction coefficients in rain aren’t bad if you’re riding at posted speeds, outside of solid metal and painted lines. It’s riding right after it starts raining that you want to avoid - all of the oils which drip from vehicles get displaced by the initial deluge, and that is slippery stuff.
Why is this? Camcorders in the 80s weren’t weird. Home movies weren’t weird. Is it solely because the device has other primary functions? Because it’s not clear that if you’re pointing at something you’re likely recording?
I don’t remember being able to do this at school while in a classroom. So I guess that part is new. And likely a problem if that’s the only venue for required learning.
Because if you face the back of the boat the sides reverse. It’s similar to stage left. When you can’t afford to be confused, one name is better than a conflicting argument between your left and the boats left.
Do you own a car? Commonly when speaking with a mechanic they'll ask questions like Driver's side or Passenger's side to get away from left/right.
People very often describe things with just _left_ or just _right_. They don't say things like when I'm sitting in the car the door to my left is hard to open. They just say the left door is broken even when both them and the mechanic are facing the car head on.
By having people use an unambiguous vocabulary it makes up for people not thinking about how their statements will be interpreted. If the deckhands were genius's they're be charting the course not heaving rope.
You aren't wrong. In that mistakes can be made. But if I ask you about your left hand, is that ambiguous? By your definition here, that is an ambiguous question. But, that just feels wrong.
Edit: I'll note that it is amusing to compare to cars. It seems the etymology of the terms is literally "driver side".
It's not ambiguous because you have a directional reference built into the phrase and speaking directly to a singular person: "ask you about your left hand".
It is certainly clear if one would say "left facing stern" or "left facing aft", but that's a mouthful when you can just shorten it (and the reference facing direction is not relevant). Bonus points if the shortened version can't be mistaken for another direction...
BTW, I'm 100% down for introducing dedicated words for "my left", "your left" etc vs just "on the left". It would certainly save me a bit of time when my family asks me to look for something and they flip between the two meanings in the same sentence.
This still falls due to you having to have a point of reference for front of boat. See other threads where double ended ones do not have fixed starboard and port.
Reminds me of this book[0] about (air-cooled) VW maintenance, which goes right into how to tear down and rebuild the engine. Anyway, it can be disorienting, at the back of the car, looking at the engine and knowing what’s front/back, but I recall he wrote something like:
Now look at the front of the engine (FRONT IS FRONT) and you’ll see…
Also, happens to generally be one of the most beautiful to read and to look-at technical manuals I can think of. Right up there w The C Programming Language.
The problem is that people (especially in stressful situations when they’re not thinking carefully) will say things like “that one on the left!” and the person they’re talking to (who is often facing them and thus reversed) won’t think to ask “my left or yours?”
But if you train people to use specifically-invented unambiguous terms that can’t be screwed up, their brains will reach for those words when they’re in trouble.
What if you're addressing someone on a boat who's facing sideways? Or a group of people facing different directions? Or you can't see them and don't know which direction they're facing, and they don't know which direction you're facing?
Just before the end is the likely reason for that: "70 hours a week".
This is the last such facility, after all the others have been closed, so needing more people is not incompatible with the fact that they've scaled down overall.
A driverless vehicle doesn't require me to add a driver to reach a destination. A serverless solution doesn't require me to add a server to achieve the goal. Something is still driving the car, something is still serving the data. But it's out of my hands.