Readit NewsIt's like an English major who can read and analyze the classics and nothing else - and cannot write at all outside of abstract poetry.
While I understand the value of distinguishing between CS and software engineering, not being comfortable with basic shell commands, installing programming language tools, compiling something using those tools, or source control means that there has been a huge gap between theory and practice in their education, which hurts understanding of both.
Particularly when interacting with senior CS students, they'll spend 6 months just getting comfortable doing very basic things like installing and running Python, using ssh with a VM, and using the command line. They try to do productive work, but their unfamiliarity with the basic tools of making software means they actually spend their time learning that.
Actually, this also applies to the basics of just writing a functioning library or piece of software, or being familiar with async vs. sync programming, etc etc. It would be better if they could dip their toes into these things while learning about, say, algorithms, because identifying the slow step in its execution context and designing a better algorithm requires knowing this stuff. Or even better, before doing any of that. I've met people with 6+ years of CS or CS-related educational background who don't know how to do basic problem solving / troubleshooting of their work because they've only done toy coding for coursework.
I guess I'd reject the whole victim/perpetrator dichotomy and say that people's conditions are contingent on forces largely out of their control. That's a factual statement. Lots of people and societies find this very uncomfortable - we generally like the cosmos to be largely about us, down to our decisions, both for the better and for the worse.
If your life isn't working for you, reassess your situation, develop a plan, and get busy!
What amount of violence would you need to experience before you would acknowledge victimization? There's plenty that goes around that you apparently don't know about.
Let's say you are poor, went to a protest, and got arrested. You can't make bail (you're poor) and are fired from your job because you are in in jail. You easily win your case and see no prison time, but your life has been massively impacted in the negative by others unjustly.
This person was a victim of policing and likely the system in general that creates these trade-offs and punishes a lack of material wealth. You cannot begin to even understand the situation without acknowledging the fault and the injustice.
If someone steals from your car, nobody plays philosophical games about whether you were victimized and understanding that you were is the very first step to even understanding the situation and then adopting habits of not leaving expensive stuff in your car, investing in locks, taking a focus to the causes of crime, etc...
While I would hesitate to call the conflation anti-semitic it is at minimum quite misleading - and also a gross overgeneralisation of Jewish identity.
Similar to how the plots themselves contain and compress a multitude of information, and we've all learned some generally shared ways to process that information (what an upward sloping means, what diverging lines mean, and others), is there a way to add information such that we have a similar shared way to process the _source_ of the data? I know that listing of sources themselves are intended for this, but unless it's your actual job to process that type of information it seems unreasonable to ask a normal person trying to live their life to track down that final information.
For example, according to this metric, the vast majority of poverty reduction happened in China. What factors can we attribute to that development? Well even asking that question means we have to go back and look at other metrics and means by which to understand economic systems and the distribution of material goods. The moment we ask a pretty basic, but arguably more relevant and useful question, we have to throw this metric away and do something else.
And when I've encountered this information in this past, the utility seems to be more about propaganda and lazy inferences than anything else, and often among famous academics. While we all have our bubbles, it does make you question the point of trying to make poverty just one quantity.