- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

“Synch Video is Bad,” perhaps a new research project?
by Giacomo Tesio Sept. 9, 2020

Sept. 9, 2020

Just to back up a step: after teaching online since about 2005, after doing a lot of research on best practices for online teaching, after doing a lot of writing and research about MOOCs, I’ve learned at least two things about teaching online: - Asynchronous instruction works better than synchronous instruction because of the affordances (and limitations) of the medium. - Video – particularly videos of professors just lecturing into a webcam while students (supposedly) sit and pay attention– is not very effective. [...] judging from what I see on social media, a lot of my colleagues who are teaching online this fall for the first time are completely ignoring these best practices: they’re teaching synchronous classes during the originally scheduled time of the course and they are relying heavily on Zoom. In many cases (again, based on what I’ve seen on the internets), instructors have no choice: that is, the institution is requiring that what were originally scheduled f2f classes be taught with synch video regardless of what the instructor wants to do, what the class is, and if it makes any sense. But a lot of instructors are doing this to themselves (which, in a lot of ways, is even worse). In my department at EMU, all but a few classes are online this fall, and as far as I can tell, many (most?) of my colleagues have decided on their own to teach their classes with Zoom and synchronously. It doesn’t make sense to me at all. [...] I think requiring students to meet online but synchronously for a class via Zoom simply is putting a round peg into a square hole. Imagine the logical opposite situation: say I was scheduled to teach an asynchronous online class that was suddenly changed into a traditional f2f class, something that meets Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10 am to 11:45 am. Instead of changing my approach to this now different mode/medium, I decided I was going to teach the class as an asynch online class anyway. I’d require everyone to physically show up to the class on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 10 am (I have no choice about that), but instead of taking advantage of the mode of teaching f2f, I did everything all asynch and online. There’d be no conversation or acknowledgement that we were sitting in the same room. Students would only be allowed to interact with each other in the class LMS. No one would be allowed to actually talk to each other, though texting would be okay. Students would sit there for 75 minutes, silently doing their work but never allowed to speak with each other, and as the instructor, I would sit in the front of the room and do the same. We’d repeat this at all meetings the entire semester. A ridiculous hypothetical, right? Well, because I’m pretty used to teaching online, that’s what an all Zoom class looks like like to me. The other problem I have with Zoom is its part in policing and surveilling both students and teachers. Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher Education both published inadvertently hilarious op-eds written to an audience of faculty about how they should maintain their own appearances and of their “Zoom backgrounds” to project professionalism and respect. [...] When online teaching came up in the first department meeting of the year (held on Zoom, of course), the main concern voiced by my colleagues who had never taught online before was dealing with students who misbehave in these online forums. I’ve seen similar kinds of discussions about how to surveil students from other folks on social media. And what could possibly motivate a teacher’s need to have bodily control over what their students do in their own homes to the point of requiring them to wear fucking shoes? This kind of “soft surveillance” is bad enough, but as I understand it, one of Zoom’s features it sells to institutions is robust data on what users do with it: who is logged in, when, for how long, etc. [...] On the other hand… The conventional wisdom about teaching online asynchronously and without Zoom might be wrong, and that makes it potentially interesting to study. For example, the main reason why online classes are almost always asynchronous is the difficulty of scheduling and the flexibility helps students take classes in the first place. But if you could have a class that was mostly asynchronous but with some previously scheduled synchronous meetings as a part of the mix, well, that might be a good thing. Continua su http://stevendkrause.com/2020/09/07/synch-video-is-bad-perhaps-a-new-resear… Ho trovato il pezzo interessante perché scritto da un insegnante. L'idea della privacy non lo sfiora lontanamente. Non nomina alternative libere o open source come Jitsi o BigBlue Button, nominando solo Zoom e Google Meet (evidenziando involontariamente il controllo assoluto del mercato da parte di queste aziende). Eppure, dalla sua prospettiva di insegnante che tiene da anni corsi online, conferma che la didattica a distanza asincrona è nettamente superiore a quella sincrona, cui sono stati costretti docenti e studenti durante il lockdown. La teledidattica asincrona è anche molto più economica da realizzare in modo scalabile, sicuro, distribuito e "privacy preserving". Non servono tecnologie avanzate: basta un servizio di hosting attraverso cui distribuire i materiali e una mailing list o un forum. Magari pensiamoci... alla prossima pandemia! ;-) Giacomo

2 1

What the real history of the 'Wild West' can teach us about the tech industry
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 8, 2020

Sept. 8, 2020

https://mashable.com/article/wild-west-tech-industry-regulation/ (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

The Stalinist Trial of Julian Assange - CounterPunch.org
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 8, 2020

Sept. 8, 2020

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/09/07/the-stalinist-trial-of-julian-assan… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Web by Google (TM)
by Giacomo Tesio Sept. 8, 2020

Sept. 8, 2020

https://landshark.io/2020/08/16/web-by-google.html Looking at Mozilla’s finances, it’s reasonable to conclude that Google is keeping them on life support to keep the anti-trust hounds at bay. Mozilla’s deal with Google will account for at least 70% of their revenues going forward. That’s over $400 million to be the default search provider in 4% of browsers. For 1 year. I’ll bet my next paycheck that Google reupped this rather generous agreement to avoid a repeat of Microsoft’s troubles over an Internet Explorer monopoly. My guess is that Google will decide it’s in their interest to pull the plug right around the time this latest wave of anti-trust talk blows over. With the troubles at Mozilla, Google is one step closer to replicating the WeChat and Facebook walled-garden model on the Web. A quick survey a the field of play shows just how far Google has come in capturing the once open Web. # (Browser) War is over Chrome’s ability to dictate web standards will only get stronger over time. Safari and Firefox have been able to apply some shame to Chrome on things like disabling third-party cookies, but soon it’ll just be Apple left with a voice. But Google doesn’t even need Chrome to dictate standards since it controls the Web’s front door. AMP, a technology no one asked for, is now on over 70% of all marketing websites for no other reason than Google said so. And let’s not forget that most people now access the web via mobile devices, 75% of which run Google’s Android. # Original Sins Two deficiencies have determined the course the Web has taken: lack of native search and lack of native payments. Lacking native distributed search allowed Google to grab a monopoly position as the entry point to the web. The Web’s orignal architects were off base on hyperlinks; it turns out people just want to skip right to the answer they’re looking for. There was once the beginnings of an alternative in public bookmarking sites, but social networks came and sucked all the air out of that space. Lack of a safe and easy way of exchanging funds was a big factor in advertising becoming the dominant business model on the Web. No-charge services became the norm because, for a long time, there was no reasonable way to pay for them. Enter advertising to fill the void. I think it’s safe to say that Google’s AdWords is the dominant advertising platform on the open Web, which means it holds a commanding position in the Web’s finances. I’m also going to throw in an honorable mention to poor native video support (it is hyper_text_ after all). It’s beating a dead horse to point out that Google also serves up the vast majority of videos streamed on the Web. # So then… So Google controls the Web’s search and video infrastructure. It can and does dictate standards and media formats. It also controls a huge chunk of the revenues available when publishing and selling on the Web. It even controls the operating system and browser through which most people interact with it. Google’s capture of the Web is a fait accompli. Only legislation will keep the World Wide Web from finally becoming Web by Google (TM).

1 0

E-Voting App Maker Voatz Asks The Supreme Court To Let It Punish Security Researchers For Exposing Its Flaws | Techdirt
by Alberto Cammozzo Sept. 8, 2020

Sept. 8, 2020

<https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200903/16005645245/e-voting-app-maker-v…> Voatz has decided to weigh in on a Supreme Court case that could turn a lot of normal internet activity into a federal crime. At the center of this CFAA case is a cop who abused his access privileges to run unauthorized searches of law enforcement databases. The end result -- after a visit to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals -- was a CFAA conviction for violating the system's terms of use. That's why this case is important. If the CFAA is interpreted this broadly, plenty of people become criminals. And it won't just be security researchers risking criminal charges simply by performing security research. It will also be everyone who lies to social media services about their personal info. Lawprof Orin Kerr's brief to the Supreme Court points out what a flat "no unauthorized use" reading would do to him. Like the majority of American adults, I have a Facebook account. Facebook’s terms of service require its users to “[p]rovide accurate information about” themselves. See Facebook Terms of Service, https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms/plain_text_ terms (last visited July 1, 2020). I recently violated that term by listing my home city as Sealand. Sealand is an offshore platform in the North Sea near England built during World War II to host anti-aircraft guns. It’s not actually my home city. I list it only to make a point about the CFAA. But under the government’s position, my joke is no laughing matter. It is a federal crime. No one should want the law to be read this way. Not even sites that would greatly prefer users to respect the terms of service. The collateral damage of a broad reading would make it far easier to prosecute people who use sites in ways owners don't expect or engage in research efforts that require ignoring the rules. And it would give abusive site owners plenty of ways to harass users and visitors they don't like. But one developer wants this to happen. And it's a developer of notoriously flawed e-voting systems. Voatz has made plenty of headlines lately. None of them have been flattering. MIT researchers discovered a bunch of flaws in Voatz software. Voatz tried to combat this negative press by hiring outside researchers to perform an independent audit of its systems. This went no better than the MIT study. Voatz is full of holes, which made its accusations that the MIT researchers were only in it for the clicks look even stupider. [...]

1 0

Re: [nexa] Il kernel Linux adotta il Code Of Conduct
by Antonio Iacono Sept. 7, 2020

Sept. 7, 2020

> L'inglese NON è un linguaggio di programmazione. Ma il 99% dei linguaggi di programmazione sono scritti in inglese. > La lingua franca cui facevo riferimento, il linguaggio di programmazione in cui il codice è scritto, è effettivamente una lingua sintetica come l'esperanto. E' un "set ridotto" di inglese, ma sempre quello è. Forse l'assembler si avvicinava ad una lingua "sintetica", non sicuramente i linguaggi estremamente verbosi successivi. Comunque non porterei alle lunghe questo thread perchè da quello che scrivi noto che siamo d'accordo in molte cose, ma non su questa. L'ideale sarebbe avere linguaggi di programmazione scritti in una lingua "terza" per tutti ma, dato che non è possibile, cosa c'è di male nel cambiare, da qui in avanti, alcuni termini. Perchè non usare, chessò, Main / Secondary (che tra l'altro hanno pure le stesse iniziali M/S), al posto di Master/Slave? Che senso ha usare ancora oggi termini antropomorfi per indicare operazioni tecniche, tutto qui. Niente di politico/religioso.

2 1

Reminder | 132° Mercoledì di Nexa | 9 Settembre 2020
by Nexa Media Sept. 7, 2020

Sept. 7, 2020

Gentilissimi, vi ricordiamo che *mercoledì 9 settembre, dalle ore 18.00 alle ore 20.00*, si svolgerà il 132° Mercoledì di Nexa, con un incontro dal titolo: *Intelligenza Naturale e Intelligenza Artificiale: Riflessioni tra Scienza ed Etica*. Ospite: /Marcello Ienca //(ETH Zurich)//./ L'incontro si svolgerà in *modalità telematica*, utilizzando il software open source di conference call *Jitsi Meet*. Per chi vorrà partecipare live al seminario sarà possibile accedere alla conference call attraverso il seguente link: https://meet.nexacenter.org/MercolediNexa Maggiori informazioni sull'incontro sono disponibili alla pagina: https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-132 Cordiali saluti,   -- Anita Botta Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino – DAUIN Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino _web:_ https://nexa.polito.it/ _mail:_anita.botta@polito.it <mailto:anita.botta@polito.it> tel: 011 090 7219

1 0

Quale cloud per la Pubblica Amministrazione?
by Antonio Iacono Sept. 5, 2020

Sept. 5, 2020

Il 25 luglio del 2012 il Centro Nexa organizzava il seminario di cui all'oggetto (1). Da allora di acqua sotto i ponti ne è passata parecchia, oggi vorrei proporvi un quesito, è giusto spendere 550.000.000 di euro per acquistare (tra l'altro con un bando di gara discutibile (2) ) servizi cloud dai "soliti noti" ? Il bando (3) è stato oggetto di numerose critiche e (forse per questo) la cui scadenza è stata rinviata dal 16/7 al 28/9. (1) https://nexa.polito.it/lunch-3 (2) https://noiopen.discourse.group/t/una-nuova-battaglia-per-la-pluralita-del-… (3) https://www.consip.it/bandi-di-gara/gare-e-avvisi/aq-public-cloud-iaas-e-pa…

1 0

Report: “Eyes Everywhere: Amazon's Surveillance Infrastructure and Revitalizing Worker Power” — Open Markets Institute
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 5, 2020

Sept. 5, 2020

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/eyes-everywhere-amazons-s… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Rage Inside the Machine: an insightful, brilliant critique of AI's computer science, sociology, philosophy and economics
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 5, 2020

Sept. 5, 2020

*Rage Inside the Machine: an insightful, brilliant critique of AI's computer science, sociology, philosophy and economics* / Cory Doctorow / 9:19 pm Thu Jun 27, 2019 Rob Smith is an eminent computer scientist and machine learning pioneer whose work on genetic algorithms has been influential in both industry and the academy; now, in his first book for a general audience, Rage Inside the Machine: The Prejudice of Algorithms, and How to Stop the Internet Making Bigots of Us All, Smith expertly draws connections between AI, neoliberalism, human bias, eugenics and far-right populism, and shows how the biases of computer science and the corporate paymasters have distorted our whole society. [...] continua qui: https://boingboing.net/2019/06/27/rage-inside-the-machine-an-in.html

3 3