I continue as an advocate for the Brave browser and ecosystem. Brave is a browser based on Chrome so most of the extension you aleady used in Chrome will work. Brave is attempting to solve the interrelated problems of personal privacy and support for content creators. Here is the perspective of another writer on what Brave provides.
The Brave ecosystem is as important as the browser itself. This ecosystem allows users to experience ads that do not result in the sharing of personal information with 3rd parties, allows users to be compensated small amounts for viewing these ads, and allows users to donate these small amounts to content providers in proportion to the time spent on content providers sites. It is more complicated than this, but these are the core components. For me, this system satisfies the fairness test that is often lacking in the Internet as most of us experience it.
Brave is easy to download and setup. If you want to put in your own money or take out money based on your usage, you would have to setup a cryptocurrency account and this involves multiple steps I see as putting off most users. For the amount of revenue you would generate through personal use, this is not worth the effort. I like the simple approach as a way to protect privacy and compensate providers.
Posted inUncategorized|TaggedBrave|Comments Off on Brave ecosystem update
I have a long history of supporting net neutrality. I was a stronger backer of the Obama era FCC ruling that ISPs must treat all content and services equally and upset when the Trump changes to the FCC ruled that ISPs could prioritize some content over others. Complaints related to the most recent FCC ruling have now generated some court rulings and the findings seem to me to be a mixed bag.
First, the court concluded the FCC did have the authority to reverse the previous administrations ruling. The court concluded that:
But judges did not dispute the FCC’s decision to classify broadband as an information service instead of a telecommunications service. Classifying broadband as an information service essentially deregulated the industry and helped the FCC repeal the core net neutrality rules. (Arstechnica)
I disagree, but I have no official standing. By this argument, I see problems everywhere. Most U.S. citizens have limited access to alternatives for this information access. To me, this argument is equivalent to suggesting that it would be OK if the only information source you had access to was Fox News. If the provider can manipulate what the only reasonably available channel of input provides, this is potentially a serious problem. Of course, there is an advantage to the provider of selling priority input to the highest bidder or a provider suiting the interests of the provider (e.g., one interested in degrading access to online video sources if it owns its own video service), but self-serving opportunities combined with limited consumer options is potentially a serious problem for consumers. Note also, that this ruling is not about consumer price controls. Neutrality is about an ISP treating all transmitted bits equally. The anti-neutrality position is about what can be expected of information sources which has a more indirect impact on consumers.
Is there an agency responsible for the oversight of information providers. To me, the information providers are the businesses and individuals creating and serving the information. The FCC position would seem to argue that the U.S. mail bringing my magazines is an information provider.
The mixed component of the ruling involved rejecting the FCCs position that simply has the authority to reject all state level rules.
The ruling does not prevent the FCC from trying to preempt state laws on a case-by-case basis. But the FCC can’t preempt all state net neutrality laws in one fell swoop, judges ruled. (Washington Post)
So, the FCC must consider the situation in each state individually. This may make more work for the FCC, but it does not suggest that each state can establish the rules that make sense for that state.
Posted inUncategorized|Taggedneutrality|Comments Off on Court offers mixed neutrality ruling
I live in the north and spend some time at a house in woods of northern Wisconsin. Every fall I watch the leaves turn and take some pictures. Some of these pictures end up posted on social media sites. There is a science to what we see, but the beauty is there whether we consider the science or not. Learning a little allows a little deeper appreciation.
I have the opportunity to view the same trees year after year. I find it fascinating that the color and even whether the leaves reveal much color varies from year to year.
Here are a few resources for learning about fall color. It is time to get to it if you want to connect this background with what is happening.
I am preparing to teach “mastery learning” next week. Teaching this topic is not particularly difficult for me because I have been interested in the topic since I first became interested in the early 1970s. The underlying principles made so much sense to me, but at that time, the classroom implementations struggled as expectations for “tutoring” associated with these principles were often impractical. As my own interests migrated to how technology might be helpful to learners, I found new opportunities for how these principles might be implemented.
The popularity of the “personalization” of learning is a recent trend that suffers from ambiguity. Some, who have connections with the principles I have just mentioned, have used the term to describe the pacing of learning. The background and aptitude of different learners dictate what might be considered the optimal pace for learning a given topic. Some can move faster than others. I don’t see how this reality can be disputed. Unfortunately, the way we educate (note the distinction here between how we educate and how we learn) involves one teacher working with a group of learners. It is often impractical for this one individual to pace learning experiences that are optimal for each leaner. This is where technology can be helpful. You can search my blog using the term “mastery” to locate other posts on this topic.
The other way of thinking about personalization might be thought of as learner interests. Obviously, we have different personal interests and we are likely more motivated to study the topics that interest us than the topics that do not. Again, technology offers a way to allow individual learners to study different topics (so does a trip to the library).
These two ways of understanding personalization have ended up at odds with each other. It is more than just using the term in different ways. In some cases, it involves a negative reaction to the other way of using the term. More clearly, this difference argues that the other perspective may lead to negative educational outcomes.
I don’t see the world this way. I see opportunities for combining opportunities to explore personal interests (think 20% time projects) and opportunities to learn required content at a pace suited to the needs of the individuals (mastery learning). To me, this is life. We have expectations we must address and we have freedom to explore what interests us. Personalization can make both expectations more productive.
If you recently updated your iOS install on an iPhone or tablet AND are using Cloudflare DNS products, you may encounter issues. I found I was unable to connect my iPad to my desktop machine to use Reflector and I was having problems with some upload services from my iPhone. In both cases, either disabling Cloudflare’s 1.1.1.1 or upgrading to WARP solved the problem. I have not encountered anyone else reporting this problem so I am generating this post.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on iOS and Cloudflare
A new study from the American Medical Association journal Pediatrics attempts to integrate the many studies on screen time, specific screen activities, and academic achievement. The study is available online.
Findings  In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 cross-sectional studies, television viewing and video game playing (but not overall screen media) were inversely associated with the academic performance of children and adolescents. In addition, the negative association between these screen-based activities and academic performance seemed greater for adolescents than for children.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
You can revoke your consent any time using the Revoke consent button.
You must be logged in to post a comment.