Why not? People are notoriously hard to change. Deploying tech is almost always a better solution.

Can you actually read TFA? For France, "No of subjects with acknowledged burnout syndrome (yr)" and "No of compensated subjects (yr)" is just one single person for 2015.

France also gives you 11 public holidays per year plus a minimum of 25 additional vacation days per year, for a total of more than seven weeks off per year. So is it little wonder that they don't have the same burnout problems that we do here in the U.S., where the average high-tech worker gets only three weeks plus public holidays? Let me tell you, the difference between three weeks and five is night and day.

In the U.S., many of us use most of our days off just for Thanksgiving and Christmas through New Year's so that the flights don't cost a small fortune, and as a result, we don't get much of a vacation at all. Yet in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this is a problem, so many C*Os still wonder why employees burn out here. Truly, they have a dizzying intellect.

Nonsense. I'd estimate that perhaps one in twenty people said it with a soft g before its creator infamously weighed in on the subject. Even then, I'd guess that probably less than one in four people switched to pronouncing it the same as the peanut butter, and they only did it because they're followers.

You are correct that value is subjective and relative. The difference between a job and a hobby lies purely in whether someone else will pay you to do it. You only have value TO SOMEONE ELSE if you can do something THEY want.

Everyone has value to themself (except in cases of severe mental disorder) so that's not really an interesting topic. The question is, are there people who are utterly and entirely incapable of doing anything that is of any value to anyone else ?

I do community theatre. People buy tickets, so it has value. But the total dollar amount of all tickets sold for all shows in a year is less than what I make working in tech for a year. A lot less. And those shows are not my work alone, they're the work of tens, maybe hundreds or people. So it's a hobby.

If "the rich" take all "the money" and go off and disconnect entirely from "the poor", will the poor just sit in the dirt, incapable of doing anything that even another poor person wants done? If yes, then they are without value as far as everyone else judges it. But if they can do anything that ANYONE else values, even if that someone else doesn't have "money", then some sort of exchange can be done. And whatever tokens or markers are used, even if it's just handwritten IOUs will for practical purposes become money.

It's not a problem if the 1% take all "the money" because the 99% can just keep doing things of value. Creation of a new set of tokens to represent value is not a big challenge. The problem is when 90% or maybe even just 80% produce and have everything they could possibly want and then 10% or 20% are incapable of doing ANYTHING that even other people as poor as themselves want done.

The sample animation you linked shows only one 256-color chunk animating at once. I'm interested to see a tech demo of multiple palette chunks animating in parallel. If you don't animate, you might as well use PNG.

GIF has not changed much in tech since 1989 (it was developed in 1987). For most of its existence it had been pronounced with a soft g, like "jif". That means that in its 32 year existence MOST people had called it with a soft-g. Meaning, gif wasn't simply invented recently as a way to pass animated memes on social media.

Anyway, it wasn't until gif's resurgence in popularity among the (primarily) Millenials to pass animated imagery via instant messaging and other social media that its pronunciation was rechristened by them to be a hard "G", because after all "GIF" looks like the shortened version of "GIFT" and they are kinda/sorta receiving a gift from a friend when they get an animated surprise message! Hooray!

Gif's CHANGED pronunciation -- to be a hard-G -- is actually a new occurrence in Gif's very long history. And so, for the young generation to think they somehow invented gif and now are trying to "teach" others how to pronounce it correctly kinda seems comical.

This whole mess could have been averted if APNG replaced the aging and horribly inefficient Gif. APNG is a better format. Yes GIF and APNG are both lossless, but APNG has much better compression, supports 24-bit color (gif only supports 256 colors), 8-bit transparency, and of course animation, but with much more granular control and options. It's also supported in all major browsers. But yet GIF just won't die already.

My take also. By know everybody really involved must know that teaching is not a tech-question. I could teach my software security course without any problem just with a blackboard and email and the students would need some networked computer access to code the exercises. That is massively below what is available anyways. No, good teaching requires good teachers, time, selection of the right students (Ones that want to learn stuff and not just want to get that degree on the cheap and the best grades possible. The second group has no business being academics. You can only teach those that can be taught and want to be taught.), meaningful feedback to the teachers and teachers that really understand their subject and the relevant part of the real world. The last is critical and often missing with pure academic teachers. Personally, I teach one course and supervise one lab. But the rest of the time I do industrial work and keep current. That gets hugely appreciated by the students. Also, as to teaching skills, it really comes down to some personality traits and to clear thinking and the ability to identify what is important and what not and to represent that. It is very important to realize that you are there for the students and that it is not about making things so complicated that you can demonstrate what a genius you are (an unfortunately frequent mistake). Beyond that, the impact of teaching skills becomes low, at least on academic level, because most of the actual learning effort has to be done by the students themselves anyways.

What is absolutely critical to realize though is that only something like 20-30% of a generation has any business getting an academic education. The rest is far better served with other options and putting them trough academic education is harmful to themselves and to society.