2) shalmanese, how would you relate this back to platforms like Reddit that are driven both by community members as well as volunteer janitors?

Compared to what specifically? It helps to find relevant, comparable examples of electives in major areas of economic impact and demonstrating how these modern electives fail to do what you described.

> vs a lot of folks coming out today without any practical knowledge, just theoretical.

This isn't a direct comparison. But if we were to make this comparison more direct (e.g "more people were prepared in 1907 for application of practical knowledge than today), it's also in need of substance. How much is "a lot"? What is practical knowledge, and how can you be sure that the knowledge taught isn't practical?

From the modern curricula linked elsewhere in the thread, it looks like quite a few courses are directly relevant to operationalization in their domains.

Security and compliance benefit heavily from this approach, and I'm sure it can be extended elsewhere as well (architecture reviews etc).

It's in poor form to do citizen-policing pretty much anywhere let alone an internet forum, but I won't begrudge the user their frustrations over something that's undeniably a problem.

Heh.

> which, if you're going into finance, consulting, public policy, or political ideology, look great. But if you want to understand or manage a real-physical-world company? Maybe Econ 1745 - "Corporate Finance" would be useful?

Are you saying that the "Railroad Practice" elective is directly comparable to the "Corporate Finance" elective of today?

If anything, I'd say that Railroad Practice is best compared to "Using Big Data to Solve Economic and Social Problems" in that they're both focused on some of the biggest economic facilitators of their respective days, rail and data science. And Harvard's other electives seem similarly tailored, allowing people to get a grasp of fields of practice that can yield them a substantial advantage in practice, e.g in leveraging globalization or serving underserved markets.

Your other points aren't comparative to the Harvard of the day but rather speculative ("a puny fraction" and its suggested impact), so there's not much I can do to speak to them.

---

Tangent: it'd be an interesting analytic exercise to compare courses and curricula year by year and see what percentage of electives have generalized, what percentage have specialized, and to get a better grasp of how a school's programs are both adapting to and anticipating current and future economics landscapes.

Meta-question on the emphasis above: are you (uoaei) and bell-cot the same user?

Have they? What's changed, specifically, in Harvard's various programs in the last 118 years that lead you to your implied conclusion that their business and economics curricula have worsened?

Microsoft's security reputation prior to the recent (5ish years?) failures was largely built up on top of the work stemming from the Trustworthy Computing memo.

https://www.wired.com/2002/01/bill-gates-trustworthy-computi...

Wishful thinking. Linked is the more common reason (lobbying), but I'm looking forward to more institutions recognizing the talent we have in the DC region.

Ripe for being gamed but is probably the only way to do PoW without becoming wildly intrusive with personal devices.

Let me see if I can articulate it.

You know how a human conversation can have multiple threads? And ten minutes in, you find the topic has totally changed and you're trying to figure out the original topic? Sometimes you can get back to it, sometimes you can't, right?

Obviously it's not quite the same when you can see prompt history, but the conversation is still pretty linear. This pre-empts that problem by letting you fork thoughts.

Not sure, but the counterpoint is the housing crisis. So painting it as something exclusive to healthcare suggests that there's no possibility of it being a systemic problem with Private Equity.

https://www.propublica.org/article/when-private-equity-becom...

One of the other comments raised said "because you don't have to go to those places," and it intuitively feels correct that basic needs are ripe for price gouging when supply is limited. But I'm out of my depth. Happy to hear other comments.

Grants got me through school, so I'm content being taxed up the nose. But I'm an outlier in my tax bracket for that opinion.

Speaking of assumptions, looks like you made an assumption the OP bought this laptop themselves.

Being able to use two external screens is practically an expectation of any laptop at this point. I can understand the OP's point that this is ridiculous.

Which essentially means the hallucination problem needs to be solved, which is a ways off.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ozempic-glp-1-drugs-m...

Here's a good piece running through the failure modes in lay terms.