More than 1% of the kids at Ivys are from the 1%, or at least that's what conventional wisdom is, and that may or may not make sense. The posted article is attempting to explain that it's through a fault in the system where those with money can use that money as a substitute for intellect or drive to distinguish their children.
I have no clue if it's right, but it's more valuable to daily life of those applying to Ivys than Honey Boo Boo or Jersey Shore would be.
How is it at all surprising that trying to "fix" problems with the body is uber-complicated?
Plus, there's the obvious missing bigger point - all these companies are trying to find a solution that is a pill, as opposed to changing the underlying problem: bad food, bad environment, bad physical conditioning, etc. Billions spent on finding pills, very little money in solving the root causes...
IMO, 99.9% of the time you don't need the more obscure data structures. And I speak from experience working in companies on software requiring high performance (runs taking 6 hours to two days are not uncommon).
That said, I was disappointed nobody had added the corner stitched data structure - I found that to be a very intriguing idea (and in my world, it turned out to be very useful).
> IMO, 99.9% of the time you don't need the more obscure data structures
Absolutely, and familiarity with these data structures is what's required to prevent these mistakes. I think a good understanding of these is more likely to prevent one from using them, or in some cases, "inventing" them.
Though another way to avoid making the mistakes is to not invent data structures. That's what libraries are for, and anyone not using a library data structure should be able to defend why they're not. Odds are, they've got no chance of writing something better than what the libraries provide (or they'd be a library writer and already know these things).
Independent of that is the fact that when an artist sells two songs on Itunes they make as much money as if they sold a whole CD. period. the end.
The second fact does not refute first, it is orthogonal.
The point they're making is that purchases are shifting from albums to tracks (as you mention), and because of the higher revenue generated (for the artist) by selling tracks, artists are winning in this scenario and the record labels are losing money.
This point is clearly made in the first bullet of the EFF article.
The larger point isn't about artists at all, but that the old school music industry is waging (and winning) a war using copyright laws, and this is having disastrous effects on free speech. The example in the first paragraph was about the seizure of 82 domains, without any due process, and this was basically because the government enforced (without question) the claims of the music industry.
Imagine if it happened to you, your domain was seized because a company with some lawyers said it was infringing on their copyright. Think you'd be miffed?
Other countries are enacting 3-strikes laws (e.g. France), where if you were accused of copyright violation (downloading illegal mp3/mp4) 3 times (accused, not even convicted), then your IP is blocked, and you can no longer access the internet from that connection.
And the EFF is saying that the music industry is getting these kinds of legislation passed on the false premise that "piracy" is harming artists' livelihoods, when in fact margins on money from sales of music is increasing for artists.
Obviously you can disagree with their points, but the facts they've presented do not conflict.
Jokes are often based on broad stereotypes and generalizations (whether they are based in truth or not). Dumb blonde, nerdy engineer, and guilt-ridden Catholic jokes use the same mechanism as this panel. Are nerdy engineer jokes grossly misleading and do they perpetuate stigmas we could be rid of? Or are they just jokes?
That said, it's interesting that you make the assumption that Calvin had ADHD.
The strip works because Calvin doesn't have ADHD, and medicating someone who doesn't have ADHD is a tragedy.
Those stereotypes are mostly benign ideas such that intelligent people recognize them as exaggerations or fictions. That is clearly not the case with this comic. It is attempting to make an argument, not an absurd joke. I didn't see a single comment about this comic about how funny it was. And "A Tragedy in Four Panels" would be an awful set-up for a joke.
Whether or not Calvin actually has ADHD is impossible to discern in this comic. I don't see a psychiatrist in one panel saying, "No, I think he's just really creative and playful," and then the parents get a second and third opinion until they get the pills.
Instead, the author is implying that the medication's benefits are immaterial, the details of the diagnosis and other treatment are immaterial, that pills naturally squelch creativity and playfulness, that they suck the color out of the world figuratively, and that all of this is an end state.
This comic could be twice as long with some more gray, a concerned parent, another trip to the doctor, and then a final frame of Hobbes and Calvin working at the desk together.
Or it could refrain from turning Hobbes into merely a doll and instead have him just hang out, ready for Calvin whenever he's done with his work.
Or it could show Hobbes become a mere doll for a few days, his parents come in to ask why he's not playing anymore, then deciding to not give him meds on weekends and vacation days.
Or it could show that the medicine wears off near the end of the school day and that his evenings remain playful.
But none of these are as sensational and none of them give voice to the widespread belief that ADHD is a fiction and its medication a societal blight.
I'm sorry to seem so hard on the posting of this comic--I'm not. On the contrary, I think it provides a nice platform for analyzing what's wrong with it and how that reflects common beliefs. The first time I saw this comic, I liked it. That was before I was diagnosed as ADHD and began doing my research about it.
For me it'd be like a comic from the 50s where the protagonist says, "My grandfather smoked 2 packs a day and died in his sleep at 100!" while towering over a bunch of simpering nerds clutching the surgeon general's warning.
There's just a lot of popular resistance to the reality of ADHD because it is a relatively subtle condition and also a complex one. The valid criticisms to be made and questions to be raised are valuable, but it's a shame for them to be lost amidst sweeping and largely misinformed generalizations.
Again, no hard feelings or anything. This is a subject about which I care deeply, and thanks again for posting this comic.
It's as relevant to daily life as Honey Boo Boo or Jersey Shore.