No, it just means you'll be spending extra time debugging it. The most clever code is often cleverness which isn't from you, but derived from the field over time.
A large part of the original Ethos of the Raspberry Pi foundation is to bring back some of the technology fascination and allure that children in 1980's Britain experienced with the BBC Micro and Acorn computers (which ultimately led to today's ARM).
We can assume the 500 is meant more as a nostalgia 'one-computer-for-every-child' design more so than a powerful work house for developers.
If you're buying Raspberry Pi's, either the form factor or power requirements really worked for you, such as if you're in robotics, IoT sensors, or hardware-adjacent stuff, or you knew you were spending a little bit extra for the hobby space.
That includes all the people setting up home labs for their own learning. An M1 is about $250 refurbished under Amazon's protection program. If you intend to use this as a hybrid device, which many frugal people do, then you'll also likely be using this as a desktop device connected to a monitor. The cost of electricity will rival your purchase in a year.
If you're gonna buy a throwaway computer for a child to experiment with, IMO a used Mac Mini delivers unbelievable price efficiency as a general-purpose computer. Use it as a server, use it for programming, use it for homework.
If you are going down this path, an N150 machine is cheaper, more flexible (Windows), more readily available, brand new, and performant enough for all the above use-cases. An old Mac Mini makes no sense to me.
Ah, the N150 machines are around $400-500 for me in the NUC. In that case it'd make sense to go for a new M4 Mini for $400 at Costco or student prices.
They are £150-£250 on Amazon right now. Cheaper if you buy elsewhere and wait 2 weeks for delivery. $400 is not a realistic price, are you looking at something else?
Opposition must come through legal means, because the cheapness and omnipresence of enforcement is only getting better, especially for SFPD on the tech front.
We don't become legal experts to run a business, we hire lawyers. We don’t become doctors to aid in our own health either. So too should people find ways to delegate and evaluate economic and policy analysis.
The terrifying reality is that there is no one to delegate to.
If we would magically spawn the theoretically ideal candidate who plans to do everything exactly the way you want it done then there is zero chance you will vote for them.
This goes for all voters. Exactly 100% of them without rounding anything.
You can't argue you don't need to know any of them because they aren't popular enough.
Democracy badly needs a better formula for discovery or some other means to add signal to the noise like a license to drive the country or some financial reward to get a diploma.
Maybe we could train an LLM to interview the voter.
Everything has compilers now and we definitely want to go that direction. The no build people aren’t close to building any popular consensus, like not close at all. Even plain JS is compile heavy because browsers are just compile targets.
The US education system only has one mode, and thats to survive in a slim way with overworked staff and huge classrooms. 40 kids in a math class is seen as normal.
Everything you see of its character, including emphasizing tests and practice, follows from that. Talking about good UX is miles away.
It's a problem that goes beyond the United States, overworked staff, and constraints in general, although these are legitimate concerns.
I studied in a non-US country, but the attention paid by teachers to pedagogy was virtually zero.
I mean, we had five years of English classes in high school, and by the end of high school, less than five out of 30 people in my cohort were able to string a couple of sentences together in English. And my class was made up of serious, studious young people. It seems to me that the time was not well spent, but did the teacher, a caring and generally competent person, reflect on the poor results? I highly doubt it.
Most teachers want to do better, but are stuck in a system where they're not able to. Overwhelmed with large classes, small budgets, ridgid programs, demanding parents, it's hard to also dedicate energy to reflection or student attention.
Most teachers have very little clue about pedagogy; let's be honest about it. And it does not mean they are incompetent at their subjects or lazy.
The fact that, outside of the expected exceptions, a skill/subject/section is never brought up after the test means that teachers are not thinking at all about retrieval practice.
There is a time for understanding and justifications, and a time for saying things as they are.
Then, my personal experience and that of my friends, who all attended mid- to high-ranking schools outside the United States, is that regardless of class size and teacher workload, teachers never seemed to know how to teach effectively and efficiently.
If you have cheat codes then why not just use it instead of insisting on principle that our eyes are good enough? We see Waymo use the cheat codes, oh no. We also only have binocular vision, so I guess Tesla is already okay with superhuman cheat codes.
reply