Let me push back and say that is not the point of university.
If you take the stance that education's function is to act like a feeder for business institutions; I guess? But that's only one byproduct of a strong education. Another is research; the other is critical thinking and civil productivity as a whole.
I'm as pro-capital as any private industry-focused tech worker is; but lets not pretend that's all the value we get out of the humanities.
But that isn't the pitch. "You go to college so you can get a good job..."
The fact is, the entire college/university system is outsized and wrong-fit for what most people actually need. And while I don't think humanities programs should be cut from universities, I also don't think that taxpayer backed student loans or payouts should be made for programs that have vastly more people enrolled in than the general economy has a demand/need for.
I'd like to see more accredited options for trade schools beyond what people currently think of as trades. From accounting, to software development. I know there are some schools that focus on these things, I just think they should be more at the forefront and higher profile options.
Isn't it fine if different degrees lead to different job opportunities? A nineteen year old should be able to understand the difference between the job market for a doctor or engineer and the job market for an MFA.
We don't need to have different institutions to grant different degrees with different levels of marketability. A college that only taught lucrative subjects and a college that taught non-lucrative subjects would both offer less educational value than a single college that offered the full range.
Sure... have all the options out there.. but taking on debt, and the risks associated should also account for the ability and risk of paying it back or not... which is pretty heavily dependent on the program in question.
I'm fine with people choosing whatever they want... but then the question comes down to how/who pays for it... and I'm emphatically not in favor of public (taxpayer) funding for programs that don't have a direct need/demand in society or the economy in general.
You want to be a fine arts major.. go for it. It may be harder if you need student loans to pay for it, when there's a few thousand people working on that degree and a few hundred jobs in the world of demand.
Someone graduating with a BFA intending to teach art or music at the K-12 level might be very satisfied with their job prospects and the life it leads to. There are at the very least tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of art and music teachers in the United States.
A bachelor's degree is required to be a K-12 teacher, so if it's impossible for teachers to pay undergraduate student loans, the problem is not with the teacher or the degree they chose to get.
A BFA wont qualify you to work as a teacher at an accredited school in the US. Positions at those schools that allow you to "teach" without a teaching degree are typically part time and volunteer.
What do you mean? Music and art teachers typically have BFAs. There are BFA programs designed for teachers, including the pedagogical training that qualifies them for teaching.
My BFA does not qualify me to be a teacher anywhere I have looked (south east, new england, ca). I do not meet the educational requirements or the practical classroom time to got a teaching certificate required to teach K-12.
I am sure there are programs that are a mix between a typical BFA program and a teaching degree, but that is not the norm.
Oh, yeah, if you don't specifically train to be a teacher, you won't qualify. I'm just saying that (AFAIK, and from a specifically Texas perspective) most people who intend to be art or music teachers get a BFA. Many of my high school teachers earned degrees specific to their subject, like B.S. in Chemistry, B.A. in History, B.A. in Literature, while concurrently completing the coursework that qualified them for teaching. You don't have to be an education major. Most state universities also have programs for people who have a bachelors degree to complete the requirements for teaching, too, and I think those programs qualify for financial aid even if they don't lead to an additional degree.
A social media ad company would be the least favourable. At least Google's central ad business is based off of search queries the user gives to them willingly for value.
This was the case, like, 20 years ago. Google is effectively an ad company that makes tech — including a browser — to gather more data from users and sell ads.
i really enjoy perplexity. i recommend taking advantage of one of the o2 resale deals out there so that its like $7/yr instead of $240 and let the VCs eat the rest. I don’t know of any better ai access deals out there. It’s absurd and unsustainable.
I have to admit, everytime I hear the "Two guys hated x, so they built their own!" I see the XCKD cartoon https://xkcd.com/927/
It's not a fair comparison; competition can drive price down, but I pessimistically just see two guys who'll inevitably join the Comcast billionaires club. That's just where these "small guys" end up.
People pointing out NLP are missing the point — pulling and crafting rules to run effective NLP is time consuming and technical. With an LLM you can just ask it exactly what you want and it interprets. That's the value; and as this deal just proved it's worth the scaling costs.
The point that is missed isn't about LLMs adequacy as a NLP technique, it's that they cost you 10000 times more for the same effect (after the upfront set-up), which is why I have my doubts that they will be used at scale, at the center of some large data ingestion pipeline. The benefit will probably be for the out of ordinary tasks and outliers.
There are so many cool things like this all over Japan, and only a very small percentage of them get completely run-over with international tourists. Even an hour or two outside of Tokyo, many not-so-hidden treasures like this can be found. And there aren't many tourists at these spots.
Take last year's "Lawson with a view of Mount Fuji" thing. The city had to to take all kinds of counter-measures to international tourists flocking there just to take a photo. Meanwhile, there are dozens more Lawsons in the area with epic views of Mount Fuji in the background, and not a tourist in sight.
Yes, I agree, because life would get boring really quickly. People should be able to express themselves (in a civil, legal manner) so that the world can be more colourful and filled with art and beauty.
But also no, I don't agree. Have you seen the impact tourism in Japan has had on the local ecosystem as of late? They've literally banned tourists in some areas because frankly: more tourists act like animals. They litter, act rude and disrespectful, and are just obnoxious. Also, in a lot of cases, they provide little to no financial growth or benefit to the local economy. Look at Venice, for example.
So I think when making something like this, there has to be some degree of forward thinking around how it's going to divert (tourist) traffic to the area and what impact that's going to have on the locals.
No patience for these complaints. Either you want tourist money or you don't. Seems like half the city lives off it and the other half hates it. That's an internal problem.
I think the main concern is about the capacity to handle that many tourists. As the population increases and general prosperity increases, amount of tourists will correspondingly increase. There are not that many tourist spots for a given location and causes overrun. There need to be some throttling function. Probably increase the cost/tax, or reduce the visas. Or increase the ability to handle so many tourists. I don't know how this can be done. May be better infrastructure and new places of interests.
>little to no financial growth or benefit to the local economy. Look at Venice
A quick Google search confirms tourism is the dominant industry in Venice. The claim that this fuels "little to no financial growth", is therefore first-order backwards. If you could set forth an edict and gradually empty Venice out into a touristless town over the next 5 years, you would probably see economic growth tumble downwards, not up.
Now capitalism would eventually catch up, it always does. Italians are cool people and hard workers. But ask e.g. the Baltic states whether they're secretly happy they lost ~a century of economic growth before finally getting the chance to enter a boom time, because it meant their economies stayed local. Then ask them another question: Suppose you didn't have much industry of note, but tourists just loved you and flocked from all over the world to see you, would you take that? I think you'd have a lot of takers.
One should a much stronger argument than "But... but tourism is icky" before you go messing with one of the primary economic levers of a whole city. Preferably an argument backed up by graphs and forecasts, because it runs contrary to basic economic wisdom. Absent those I feel comfortable guessing that the median Japanese town which bans tourists will probably suffer economically for it, in no small part because that suggests tourists were at some point a big deal. Any eventual industrial rebound, if it happens at all, will happen because they gradually became cheaper to work in than surrounding areas (I wonder why?), and would not be sufficient to make up for the lost compound growth of the 5-10 years where a key industry for that area was kneecapped.
> A quick Google search confirms tourism is the dominant industry in Venice. The claim that this fuels "little to no financial growth", is therefore first-order backwards.
How much of the money stays in Venice? Just because you handed over cash at a till in a cafe in Venice, doesn't mean a single local sees a lick of that money. They might not even see a lick of the taxes, neither. I've been to Venice... have you? Thanks for Googling about Venice, but try going and speaking to the locals, because I have.
The claim that “tourism has little financial benefits to the local economy in Venice” is debatable and context-dependent. Here's a detailed breakdown addressing both why the claim may be true in some aspects, and why it may be misleading or false in others.
---
Arguments Supporting the Claim:
1. High Leakage of Tourist Revenue
Much of the tourist spending in Venice ends up outside the local economy:
Many hotels, cruise lines, and travel agencies are owned by foreign or non-local entities.
Revenue often flows to large tour operators, not to Venetians themselves.
Day-trippers (especially cruise passengers) spend very little per capita.
2. Overtourism and Cost Externalization
The externalities of mass tourism (e.g. garbage collection, water bus crowding, maintenance of ancient infrastructure) are borne by the municipality and residents, not by tourists.
The economic cost of wear and tear on fragile historical structures is immense and undercompensated.
3. Loss of Local Businesses and Services
Traditional shops and services (bakeries, fishmongers, schools) are being replaced by souvenir shops and Airbnbs, which often serve short-term tourists.
This creates a "hollow economy" where real life becomes unviable for locals.
4. Depopulation and Real Estate Inflation
Real estate is increasingly purchased by investors for short-term rentals, pushing locals out and reducing residential density.
Venice’s population has dropped from ~175,000 in 1950s to under 50,000 today in the historic center.
5. Low Multiplier Effect
Much of the employment created is low-paid, seasonal, precarious, and lacks career development.
Limited reinvestment into the community fabric (education, public health, sustainable infrastructure).
---
Counterarguments (Why Tourism Still Brings Economic Benefit):
1. Tourism Is a Major Employer
A significant portion of Venetian jobs is in hospitality, transport, and retail, all tied to tourism.
Completely removing tourism would collapse the current local job market.
2. Tax Revenues
The city imposes tourist taxes (tassa di soggiorno) on accommodations and more recently, even entrance fees for day-trippers.
These can help fund infrastructure and conservation—if well-managed.
3. Export Substitute
Venice doesn’t have a diversified industrial base. Tourism is one of the few export-equivalent services Venice can offer due to its geographic isolation and fragile ecosystem.
---
Conclusion
While tourism contributes significantly in gross economic terms, the net local financial benefit is undermined by:
revenue leakage,
rising costs of living,
poor job quality,
and infrastructure stress.
Thus, the statement is partially true: mass tourism as currently structured in Venice is unsustainable and offers diminishing marginal returns to locals, especially compared to the burdens it imposes
Can't really blame click economy when travel is promoted as universal good from local, state and national governments all over the world. Travel used to be few times in a lifetime thing. Now it is like everyone should be traveling few times a year at least.
> Now it is like everyone should be traveling few times a year at least
You and I live in different worlds. I only know one person who travels that often, after he became wealthy from a successful buy out. Overwhelmingly the people around me travel a handful of times in a lifetime.
Most people I know are not rich but have or had ok jobs and they all travel 4-5x / year. Most do all inclusive trips mixed with once a year a longer trip. It is quite weird as I myself am somewhat confused how they manage; when asked they mostly say that they dont have other use for the money anyway.
Don’t underestimate domestic Japanese tourism! To be fair, it feels a bit different, compared to international, as there’s no language barrier and etc.
And researchers on planet earth aren't a monolith. Even "longevity" research can take vastly different shapes across the labs driving towards it. The mess of research towards a goal is kinda the point; nobody knows where the universe hid the nuggets of world-bending discoveries. It's not quite pray and spray; but the shapes are diverse and irregular by design.
Cancer, alzheimers, cell senescence — all of it's fair game. Why are we pretending like anybody knows how to police this thought work?
Here is the hottest of takes for you: curing cancer is not, in practice, entirely noble.
1. It is partially self-inflicted. Fallout from nuclear incidents, particularly in the US (testing in Nevada) and northern Europe (Chernobyl), is still a measurable contributor to cancer rates. Its prominence in medicine after the middle of the 20th century reflects these self-inflicted injuries from the Cold War. Likewise there are numerous cases of regulatory capture and corporate dishonesty resulting in cohorts who have suffered from carcinogenic chemicals like nicotine, glyphosate, and teflon. Nevertheless, heart disease has now overtaken it as the leading cause of death in the US. The further away you get from the US, the rarer it is as a cause of death.
2. The label is nearly meaningless in public funding. So much money has been poured into cancer research that other lines of biology have adapted by contorting their mission statements into tangentially cancer-related programs. Want to study how neurons develop in nematodes? Too bad—there's no money for that. But make up some BS about how it's a model organism for studying the spread of neuroblastomas, and you've successfully perverted the grant process into supporting research that the bean-counters tried to starve. This verges on fraud, even though no one wants to talk about it because the starved areas of research are usually areas of fundamental science that are highly regarded by other biologists.
3. The sheer abundance of charitable organizations handing out money to cancer-related causes results in a lot of science, much of it low-quality or poorly-vetted. In grad school I had an entire seminar class that consisted of, "here's a novel ML method applying SVMs to detecting disease; let's talk about it" and at least half of the randomly-selected papers promising significant results had blatant reproducibility problems like overfitting or bad methodology. These papers are easily published because they can be shat out in some generalist journal that tangentially touches on the relevant subject but does not have the editorial expertise to analyze the math involved. Retraction counts always follow hot topics, and the gross intersection of emotionally-motivated funders, siloed reviewers, and fame-chasing has ensured cancer research regularly produces too much low-end material to ever hope to check it all for reproducibility.
> It is partially self-inflicted. Fallout from nuclear incidents, particularly in the US (testing in Nevada) and northern Europe (Chernobyl), is still a measurable contributor to cancer rates.
Other industrial/chemical exposures yes, but this almost certainly isn't it. Outside of specific significant exposures, estimating cancer rates from radiation exposure is just statistical garbage. Anything at the low exposure end relies on the bottom of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model where the model is known to be wrong. (LNT is useful for public policy - you should seek to minimize the exposure from any industrial processes and materials to zero - but it is bad for public health in telling people that any exposure increases their cancer risk.)
Sounds like you might know this but I'll add it for the public dialogue.
LNT is useful because you work with an abundance of caution when it comes to radiation. It's difficult to know what type of radiation someone received and where. Both of these can dramatically change the risk of exposure. It's not hard to measure in a lab, but an accident isn't a lab and you can't just go placing sensors all over every radiation worker's body (at least yet. Small sensors embedded in clothing would change this).
So what do you do? You purposefully over estimate. Because if your estimate is wrong, the human is much more likely to survive if you incorrectly assumed they received more than they actually did than if you error by assuming they got less than they actually did. Failure analysis is a critical part to any engineering or safety plan.
Why not over estimate as much when higher dosages are received? Well that's because it matters a lot less. As dosage increases all those nuances of where and what type matter less (they still matter).
It's still all highly complex and what I'll say is that if you haven't spent at least a year studying this stuff you're more under water than you think. It's great that there's a lot of educational material out there but unfortunately when it comes to complex topics like nuclear many of them do more harm than good. Pro nuclear armchair experts tend to be as uninformed as anti nuclear armchair experts. So like the LNT, it is always good to work with an abundance of caution. Especially when talking about complex subjects on the internet
I wonder how often people don't understand how radiation affects health- because nominal levels don't hit the news. but, oh boy, when a single Fukushima isotope decay is detected on the coast of California- its national news.
We're really good at detecting radiation. Like REALLY good. It's because we spent a lot of money during the Cold War trying to detect nuclear materials. This includes underground weapons testing, being able to detect underground nuclear signatures via satellites, and even very trace amounts on people's clothing because it can help detect spies. It then was found that these things could be used for tons of stuff, such as tracking not spies lol.
But seriously, we can detect levels thousands of times lower than what's dangerous. You can even get pretty good dosimiters for like $100 these days
In terms of your first point, I'm not sure I understand how the overall cancer rate being increased by dubious activities on the part of some people implies that efforts to cure cancer on the part of others are "not entirely noble". On the surface, this seems like a non-sequitur -- could you explain your reasoning further?
> It is partially self-inflicted. Fallout from nuclear incidents, particularly in the US (testing in Nevada) and northern Europe (Chernobyl), is still a measurable contributor to cancer rates. Its prominence in medicine after the middle of the 20th century reflects these self-inflicted injuries from the Cold War. Likewise there are numerous cases of regulatory capture and corporate dishonesty resulting in cohorts who have suffered from carcinogenic chemicals like nicotine, glyphosate, and teflon. Nevertheless, heart disease has now overtaken it as the leading cause of death in the US. The further away you get from the US, the rarer it is as a cause of death.
You have an interesting definition of "self-inflicted". I'd argue that most of the people getting cancer from the effects you mention were not the ones causing it, and presumably plenty of the researchers weren't either. I'm not convinced it's reasonable to abstract entire countries over a number of decades when judging the ethics of something like this
Radon, a perfectly natural source of radiation, cause more cancer than all the other nuclear sources combined. Stop it with the nuclear fear mongering!
Amazon has been doing this since the 2000's. Fun fact: This is how AWS came about; for them to scale its "LOOK INSIDE!" feature for all the books it was hoovering in an attempt to kill the last benefit the bookstore had over them.
Ie. This is not a big deal. The only difference now is ppl are rapidly frothing to be outraged by the mere sniff of new tech on the horizon. Overton window in effect.
IMO we're losing a lot of writing craftsmanship across many industries with Gen X'ers retiring