I used to be spoken for when it came to short time waster puzzlers as none to could topple the venerable 2048. You see it’s not so much that the game itself is that challenging or intriguing (although I will admit it too me far too long to get my first 2048 block) more that I had seen others get really high numbers and I wanted to do that to. So, whenever I found myself with 5 minutes to burn there I’d be, combining blocks together, trying to get my score higher. Since changing phones however I’ve lost my score and this has opened up the opportunity for another contender to take its place. Unium, with it’s deceptively simple concept, is one I’ve lost a decent amount of time to over the past couple weeks and could very well be a contender for my time waster of choice.
The objective is simple: you have to fill in all the black blocks on the screen and can only do so by drawing a line. If the line crosses itself it’ll turn black and you can only cross another line perpendicularly, meaning any corner square is essentially fixed as you left it. There are well over a hundred different grids for you to try your hand at with a limitless supply of new puzzles now being delivered through the Steam Workshop, created via the in game editor. As a concept it’s very easy to grasp however the puzzles, even when they look simple, are anything but requiring either a lot of trial and error or a laterally thinking mind to complete.
Graphically Unium is very simple with the colour palette limited to just the gradient between black and white. For games like this simplicity in the presentation is something I’ve come to appreciate as it means that details aren’t lost in seas of colour or other visually confusing elements. Apart from that there’s really not a lot to say about it how it looks as once you’ve seen the first puzzle you’ve seen all the game has to give you visually. The minimal soundtrack in the background is a nice touch however, even if the menu sounds seem like they were sampled at bitrate far below what they should have been.
The puzzles start off pretty simple, showing you the basics of how to fill in all the blocks and throwing you a few curve balls every now and then to get you thinking differently. Once you’re past the initial set of easy puzzles however things start to get really interesting as you’ll often not be able to just figure it out as you go along. Indeed it’s past that point when Unium starts to show its chops as a real puzzler as the puzzles no longer accommodate a range of solutions, instead only allowing a few ways for the puzzle to be solved. I have to admit that there were a few puzzles that stopped me dead cold for quite a while although now I figure I’ve cracked the secret for puzzles like this (for the most part).
The two most important aspects I found for solving any of the harder puzzles was the start and end of the line and the direction in which you were solving the puzzle (which could be roughly described as clockwise or anticlockwise). There are some puzzles that, unless you pick the right start and finish positions, are simply unsolvable as those two blocks have unique properties that the rest of them don’t. The direction has less of an impact as any puzzle should be solvable in forward or reverse, however I often found that if I was tackling a problem in one direction switching it to the other side would usually trigger an insight into how the puzzle was meant to be solved. That might just be how my brain works however but it’s definitely something I’d recommend trying if you’re struggling.
Unium is a great little puzzler, presenting an extremely simple concept that’s easy to grasp yet incredibly challenging to master. It might not be the most visually interesting game around however it’s minimal aesthetic means you’ll be keenly focused on the problem at hand rather than ogling all the pretty colours. The now limitless stream of puzzles is sure to give Unium staying power far beyond its original station and I’m sure there are going to be some incredibly frustrating puzzles coming out of the community. If, like me, you were looking for a replacement time waster then you won’t be disappointed with Unium.
Unium is available on PC, iOS and Android right now for $1.99, $2.49 and $2.49 receptively. Game was played on the PC with a total of 2.4 hours total playtime.
Today’s workplaces value the appearance of being productive rather than actual productivity. This seemingly nonsensical behaviour stems from the inability of many companies to accurately define performance metrics or other assessable criteria on which to judge someone’s productivity and thus they rely on the appearance of someone being busy as a judge instead. This is what leads many to engage in activities which, on the surface, make you appear busy but are either outright wasteful or horribly inefficient. As someone who has spent the vast majority of his professional career working himself out of a job I’ve found this behaviour particularly abhorrent, especially when it comes back around to bite me.
You see for anyone who is highly effective at their job there’s a tendency to get through your work faster than what would be usually expected and, consequently, they will often seek additional tasks to fill the rest of their working week. The trouble is that once their baseline job functions have been satisfied the tasks remaining are usually the low priority ones that either don’t really require the attention of a highly effective worker or won’t produce any meaningful outputs. Indeed I found this out the hard way many times as my investment in automating many of my routine tasks would often see me doing mundane things like updating documentation templates or reorganising file structures. Such tasks are a killer for highly effective workers and new research from Duke University, University of Georgia, and University of Colorado finally adds some scientific evidence to this.
First the researchers looked at how people would assign tasks to different workers based on a single attribute: self control. Predictably the participants in the study assigned more work to those with better self control with the rationale that they would be more effective at completing the work. Whilst that might not be a revolutionary piece of research it sets the foundation for the next hypothesis: does that additional work burden said efficient worker? Because for a work environment where all are rewarded at the same level doing more work for the same benefit is a burden to efficient workers and that’s what the second piece of research sought to find out.
In a study of 400 employees it was found that effective employees were not only aware of the additional burden placed on them they often felt that their boss and fellow employees weren’t aware of the burden that it placed on them. The end result of this study was to conclude that efficient workers should not be rewarded with additional work but instead with opportunities or better compensation. Engaging in the other behaviour instead encourages everyone to do the least amount of work required to fulfill their duties as there’s no incentive to be efficient nor productive beyond that. Again this might seem like an obvious conclusion but the current zeitgeist of today’s working environments still runs contrary to this conclusion.
I do feel incredibly lucky to be working for a company which adheres to this ethos of rewarding efficiency and actual productivity rather than the appearance of being busy. However it took me 7 years and almost as many jobs to finally come across a company that functions in this regard so the everyman’s workplace still has a long way to go. Whilst research like this might not have much of an effect on changing the general workplace environment hopefully the efficient workers of the world can find solace in the fact that science is on their side.
Or, at the very least, realise that they should work that system to their advantage.
Ah PowerPoint, the thing that everyone seems to loathe when they walk into a meeting yet still, when it comes time for them to present something, it’s the first tool they look to for getting their idea across. Indeed in my professional career I’ve spent many hours standing in front of a projection screen, the wall behind me illuminated by slide after slide of information I was hoping to convey to my audience, jabbering on about what the words behind me meant. It seems that every year there’s someone calling for the death of the defacto presentation tool with them lamenting its use in many well publicised scandals and failures. However like the poor workman who blames his tools PowerPoint is not responsible for much of the ills aimed at it. That, unfortunately, lies with the people who use it.
PowerPoint, like every Microsoft Office product, when put in the hands of the masses ends up being used in ways that it never should have been. This does not necessarily mean the tool is bad, indeed I’d like to see a valid argument for the death of say Word given the grave misuses it has been put to, more that it was likely not the most appropriate medium for the message it was trying to convey or the audience it was presented to. When used in its most appropriate setting, which I contend is as a sort of public prompt card for both the speaker and the audience, PowerPoint works exceptionally well for conveying ideas and concepts. What it’s not great at doing is presenting complex data in a readily digestible format.
But then again there are very few tools that can.
You see many of the grave misgivings that have been attributed to PowerPoint are the result of its users attempting to cram an inordinate amount of information into a single panel, hoping that it somehow all makes its way across to the audience. PowerPoint, on its own, simply does not have the capability to distill information down in that matter and as such relies on the user’s ability to do that. If the user then lacks the ability to do that both coherent and accurately then the result will, obviously, not be usable. There’s no real easy solution to this as creating infographics that convey real information in a digestible format is a world unto itself but blaming the tool for the ills of its users, and thus calling for the banning of its use, seems awfully shortsighted.
Indeed if it was not for PowerPoint then it would be another one of the Microsoft Office suite that would be met with the same derision as they all have the capability to display information in some capacity, just not in the format that most presentations follow. Every time people have lamented PowerPoint to me I’ve asked them to suggest an alternative tool that solves the issues they speak of and every time I have not recieved a satisfactory answer. The fact of the matter is that, as a presentation tool, PowerPoint is one of the top in its class and that’s why so many turn to it. The fact that it’s found at the center of a lot of well publicised problems isn’t because of its problematic use, just that it’s the most popular tool to use.
What really needs to improve is the way in which take intricate and complex data and distill that down to its essence for imparting it on others. This is an incredibly wide and diverse problem space, one that entire companies have founded their business models on. It is not something that we pin on a simple presentation tool, it is a fundamental shift away from thinking that complex ideas can be summed up in a handful words and a couple pretty pictures. Should we want to impart knowledge upon someone else then it is up to us to take them on that journey, crafting an experience that leaves them with enough information for them to be able to impart that idea on someone else. If you’re not capable of doing nor PowerPoint nor any other piece of software will help you.
Cancer drugs are, to be honest, a club being used where a scalpel is needed. Most modern chemotherapy treatments hinge on the principle that certain drugs will kill the cancer quicker than the patient as their indiscriminate nature makes no distinction between fast growing cancer cells and regular ones. Thus any form of treatment that can either reduce the amount of drugs used or get them to target cancer cells specifically is keenly researched as they can drastically improve the quality of life of the patient whilst increasing overall effectiveness. Such improvements are few and far between and rarely come hand in hand. A new development, coming off the back of the “unboiled” egg research announced earlier this year, however may improve both fronts for current cancer treatments.
The initial research, which I refrained from writing on at the time, is pretty interesting even if the headlines don’t exactly match the reality. Essentially the researchers, based out of University of California (Irvine Campus) and chemists within Australia, have developed a process to take cooked egg protein and revert part of it back to its original form. The process they do this with is rather interesting and begins with them liquefying the egg using an urea based substance. This now liquid cooked egg, which at a protein level is still all tangled up, is then put into a machine called a vortex fluidic device (VFD) which applies an incredible amount of shear force to those proteins. This forces the proteins to untangle themselves and return to their original form. While this might sound like a whole lot of nothing it essentially allows for the mass manufacture of proteins that aren’t jumbled or misfolded which are invaluable to many areas of research.
More recent research however has employed the use of this device in conjunction with a widely used cancer drug, carboplatin. Carboplatin was introduced some 30 years ago and is favoured due to its reduced and more manageable side effects when compared to drugs that use a similar method of action. However that reduced effectiveness means that a higher dosage is required to achieve the same level of treatment, on the order of 4 times or so. Carboplatin is also a stable drug which doesn’t break down as rapidly as other drugs do, however this also means that it can readily pass through the body with up to 90% of the dosage being recoverable from a patient’s urine. Using the VFD however has the potential to change that dramatically.
The same researchers behind the original discovery have used the VFD to embed carboplatin in molecules that are called lipid mimics which are powerful antioxidants. This has done through previous methods however the use of the VFD has increased the rate at which the drug was embedded in the mimics, from 17% to 75%. This means that the drug will be about 4 times as effective in delivering its payload, allowing doctors to significantly reduce the amount used to achieve the same results. This will dramatically improve patient’s quality of life through better outcomes and significantly reduce side effects. Such a process could also be applied to other treatments as the lipid mimics are capable of storing water soluble active agents as well.
It might not be the most headline grabbing title however it has the potential to significantly increase the effectiveness of current cancer treatments whilst keeping the patient’s quality of life high. Like all improvements it’s likely going to be specific to certain treatments and types of cancer however it will likely lead onto further research that will hopefully improve all areas of cancer research.
I don’t think I’m alone in feeling an almost irrational hatred towards clickbait headlines. It’s not the headlines themselves, per se, more the fact that they exist solely to trick you into clicking through by attempting to trigger your desire for closure rather than a genuine interest in the content. Indeed after being blasted with these headlines for years now I’ve found myself being turned off by the headlines, sometimes even stopping me from reading things that I would have otherwise been interested in. This got me thinking: have we reached the point of diminishing returns for clickbait? As it turns out this might be true but there’s not exactly a lot to go on in terms of research in this field.
You don’t have to go far to find numerous articles which deride and lament the use of clickbait but they have existed since it first began its rise to infamy all those years ago. Certainly there’s a subsection of society which doesn’t appreciate the lowest common denominator style writing which clickbait headlines imply but you get that with almost any new trend, so the question then becomes one of magnitude of the resistance. In order to answer the question of whether or not we’ve reached peak clickbait I did my usual search through various sources but found myself coming up blank, even when I narrowed my view to scholarly sources only. The best I could find was this subject line report from ReturnPath which, whilst it provides some interesting insights, doesn’t speak to the larger question of whether or not we’re starting to get fed up with clickbait as a thing.
Essentially the report states that, for email subject headlines, clickbait style headlines are far less effective than they are on other mediums. Certainly in my experience this is somewhat true, clickbait in my inbox is far less likely to prompt me to click, however it’s a single data point in an area that should be flooded with data. This could be because that data is being held by those who are profiting from it and, by that token, since the main offenders are still engaging in such behaviour you’d hazard a guess that it’s still working from them. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s effectiveness isn’t waning but unless Buzzfeed or another clickbait site decides to open the doors to researchers we likely won’t have an answer for some time.
I must admit that this search was somewhat aspirational in nature; I wanted, nay hoped, that there’d be evidence that clickbait’s demise was just over the horizon. As it turns out while there are rumblings of discontent with the trend there’s very little evidence to suggest it will be going away anytime soon. Hopefully though more companies take a stance ala Facebook’s pushing these kinds of titles further down the chain in favour of more genuine headlines that rely on genuine interest rather than novelty or emotional responses. For now though we’ll just need to keep applying our own filters to content of this nature.
Although I must admit whatever that one weird secret a stay at home mum has does sound rather intriguing… 😉
It’s been a while since I’ve had a good story first pixelart game come my way. It seems the indie scene has begun to move away from them as they seek out more profitable ground in zombies and survival simulators. That has left something of a void behind, leaving only those with a real passion for this particular style of games behind. So whilst I may not be spoilt for choice like I once was I can’t deny that the quality has definitely gone up a notch or two, especially from my favourite publisher in this genre. The latest title from Wadjet Eye Games, Technobabylon created by the developers at Technocrat Games, is no exception to this providing the kind of deep story and fanciful pixelart that has become a signature of all their published games.
In the distant future of 2087 the world has changed dramatically with the wonders of science working their ways into our everyday lives. Genetic engineering is commonplace with children and adults shaped by gengineers, allowing them to sculpt their perfect human form. The story takes place in the City of Newton, the ultimate expression of a science based society that is controlled by a benevolent AI called Central who handles the daily machinations of the city. Many now choose to spend their days in the Trance, a fully simulated reality where ideas flow freely, consciousnesses meld and drift apart and, of course, anything goes. It seems like a picture perfect future but there are many actors that would upset the balance or turn it in their favour.
Technobabylon brings the standard pixelart affair making no use of modern graphics tricks to jazz up the visuals. It was interesting to see so many different rendering options available through the setup program however none of them seemed to make much of a difference to the graphics on screen. I’ll admit I only played with a few of them, mostly to see if I could get it out of the 4:3 aspect ratio it runs in (you can’t) so there’s potentially a setting in there that makes everything look amazing. Still Technobabylon has its moments where I was thoroughly impressed with what they managed to accomplish (the final 3D-ish scenes are a good example of this) with the pixelart medium, something I’ve come to expect from the games Wadjet Eye publishes.
Technobabylon is your typical pixelart adventure game, taking it’s cues from the multitude of titles of yesteryear and those from the renaissance period that pixelart games have recently enjoyed. At it’s core Technobabylon is a puzzler, challenging you to find the right thing to combine with the other thing, which dialogue options to choose to get someone to say the right thing and figuring out what you need to click on to make something happen. Like most modern incarnations of this genre Technobabylon has an improved and simplified inventory system making it a lot less of a bother to try item combinations than it once was. Unlike some previous titles though there’s no combat to speak of and any situation that may result in your untimely demise will simply respawn you right where you left off. So overall no real surprises here in terms of mechanics as is pretty standard for many games in this genre.
The puzzles are pretty well done for the most part, ensuring that you soak up every skerrick of a clue to make sure you can progress to the next stage. Some of them require you to have a little bit of knowledge of how some kinds of systems would work (say for instance what security mechanisms a hand print scanner would employ) but for the most part you should be able to figure them out based on clues in the current room/level. I will admit that I got stuck about a half a dozen times, reaching for the walk through guide (which I honestly wish all review copies would come with) to get me past a section I just couldn’t seem to figure out. The puzzles I figured out on my own though were quite satisfying, especially when I felt I figured something out that the developer obviously thought would stump me for a while.
I can’t remember what the engine was that Technobabylon mentioned it used at the end however it suffers from probably one of the most annoying bugs I have ever come across. Should you use SHIFT + TAB to open up the Steam chat window whilst playing the game all the dialogue boxes from then on flit past, as if you’re holding down the space bar or left mouse button. This issue will persist for as long as you remain in the game and can only be fixed by exiting out and coming back in again. I first noticed this with A Golden Wake (although it was triggered by ALT + TAB) which, I’m guessing, uses the same engine. It’s not so much a critique of the game per se, the developers fixed numerous issues that I saw during my playthrough before release date, more something that budding indie devs might want to be wary of.
As is trademark for nearly all Wadjet Eye games Technobabylon carries with it a fantastic story, one that’s steeped in futurism and radical ideas about what technology can bring us. All the main characters are given plenty of time to develop their back story which are expertly intertwined with each other. Most characters have oodles of non-critical dialogue options which serve to build out the story. Even better still is the fact that the vast majority of content within Technobabylon is voice acted so you’re not going to be stuck reading walls of text for hours on end. The only fault with Technobabylon’s story is that it lacks a really deep emotional hook to draw you in, something like the opening minutes of Ori and the Blind Forest, which would really seal the deal on this otherwise great story.
Technobabylon is a great example of the modern pixelart adventure game, bringing along with it a great story that’s just oozing futuristic tones. It might not be the most revolutionary games, playing it safe by keeping the mechanics simple and the puzzles accessible, however the experience it provides is above many of its competitors. If, like me, you had been left wanting for a good adventure game for some time then you really can’t go past Technobabylon as it’s sure to provide you with many hours of enjoyment.
Technobabylon is available on PC right now for $14.99. Total game time was approximately 7 hours. A copy of Technobabylon was provided to The Refined Geek for the purposes of review.
The question of where life came from on our Earth is one that has perplexed scientists and philosophers alike for centuries. Whilst we have really robust models for how life evolved to the point it’s at today how it first arose is still something of a mystery. Even if you adhere to the idea of panspermia, that the original building blocks of life were seeded on our planet from some other faraway place, that still raises the question of how that seed of life first came to be. The idea of life coming arising from the chemical soup that bathed the surface of the young earth is commonly referred to as abiogenesis but before that process took place something else had to occur and that’s where chemical evolution steps in.
We’ve know for quite a while that, given the right conditions, some of life’s most essential building blocks can arise out chemical reactions. The young earth was something of a massive chemical reactor and these such reactions were commonplace, flooding the surface with the building blocks that life would use to assemble itself. However the jump from pure chemical reactions to the development of other attributes critical to life, like cell walls, is not yet clear although the ever closing gap between chemical evolution and regular evolution suggests that there must be something. It’s likely that there’s no one thing responsible for triggering the explosion of life which is what makes the search for the secret all the more complicated.
However like all scientific endeavours it’s not something that I believe is beyond our capability to understand. There have been so many mysteries of the universe that were once thought impossible to understand that we have ended up mastering. Understanding the origins of life here on Earth will bolster our searches for it elsewhere in the universe and, maybe one day, lead us to find a civilization that’s not of our own making. To me that’s an incredibly exciting prospect and is one of the reasons why theories like this are so fascinating.
Human spaceflight is, to be blunt, an unnecessarily complicated affair. Us humans require a whole host of things to make sure we can survive the trip through the harsh conditions of space, much more than our robotic companions require. Of course whilst robotic missions may be far more efficient at performing the missions we set them out on that doesn’t further our desire to become a multi-planetary species and thus the quest to find better ways to preserve our fragile bodies in the harsh realms of space continues. One of the biggest issues we face when travelling to other worlds is how we’ll build our homes there as traditional means will simply not work anywhere else that we currently know of. This is when novel techniques, such as 3D printing come into play.
Much of the construction we engage in today relies on numerous supporting industries in order to function. Transplanting these to other worlds is simply not feasible and taking prefabricated buildings along requires a bigger (or numerous smaller) launch vehicles in order to get the required payload into orbit. If we were able to build habitats in situ however then we could cut out the need for re-establishing the supporting infrastructure or bringing prefabricated buildings along with us, something which would go a long way to making an off-world colony sustainable. To that end NASA has started the 3D Printed Habitat Challenge with $2.25 million in prizes to jump start innovation in this area.
The first stage of the competition is for architects and design students to design habitats that maximise the benefits that 3D printing can provide. These will then likely be used to fuel further designs of habitats that could be constructed off-world. The second part of the competition, broken into 2 stages, is centered on the technology that will be used to create those kinds of structures. The first focuses on technology required to use materials available at site as a feed material for 3D printing, something which is currently only achieved with very specific feedstock. The second, and ultimately the most exciting, challenge is to actually build a device capable of using onsite materials (as well as recyclables) to create a habitable structure with a cool $1.1 million to those who satisfy the challenge. Doing that would be no easy feat of course but the technology created along the way will prove invaluable to future manned missions in our solar system.
We’re still likely many years away from having robots on the moon that can print us endless 3D habitats but the fact that NASA wants to spur innovation in this area means that they’re serious about pursuing a sustainable human presence offworld. There’s likely numerous engineering challenges that we’ll need to overcome, especially between different planets, but it’s far easier to adapt a current technology than it is to build one from scratch. I’m very keen to see the entries to this competition as they could very well end up visiting other planets to build us homes there.
Whilst the mainstream media would have you believe that the bright spots on Ceres were a surprise to everyone they’ve actually been something we’ve known about for quite some time. However in the past they seemed to come and go making consistent observations of them rather difficult. With the Dawn craft now in a stable orbit around Ceres we are now in the position to observe them much more closely, bringing us ever closer to understanding what the heck it is. There’s still a lot more for us to understand but the first round of preliminary observations have provided some very good insight into the bright spot’s composition and its likely origin.
The first revelation to come out of Dawn’s observations was that the bright spot was in fact not a singular entity and is made up of several spots. There’s 2 large primary bright spots that are accompanied by a bunch of smaller ones which indicates that, as we make better observations, that those larger spots are most likely made up of multiple smaller spots as well. As the above ground map indicates there are actually a bunch of other bright spots dotted over Ceres’ landscape however none of them were close enough together to be observable before Dawn began making closer approaches. The origins of these spots remain something of a mystery however there are several prevailing theories about how they could have been created.
Ceres has been observed as having a very tenuous atmosphere which could only have arisen from outgassing or sublimation from its core. In early 2014 observations of Ceres detected some localized cryovolcanoes which are dumping some 3KG of water out into space every second supporting the theory that there’s some form of water hidden within Ceres. This supports the theory that these bright spots are most likely water ice (which would have the required reflectivity) but at the same time water in a vacuum tends to sublimate very quickly which begs the question of how long these bright spots have been around and how long they’ll last.
It’s quite possible that the ice in the crater was revealed by a recent impact and thus we’re just lucky that the bright spot is there for us to observe it. Considering that Ceres sits within the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter this is a very real possibility although that does then raise the question of why we’re not seeing more bright spots than we currently are. This is what then fuels other, more exotic, theories about what’s at the base of that crater such as a large metallic deposit. However evidence to support those theories isn’t yet forthcoming however once Dawn starts making closer approaches there is potential for some to come to light.
Needless to say the next few months of observations will prove extremely valuable in determining the bright spots’ elusive nature. Whilst the reality is likely to be far more dull and boring than any of the exotic theories make it out to be it’s still an exciting prospect, one that will give us insight into how solar systems like ours form.
Starting a company in Australia, especially one that’s in the high tech industry, is much harder than it is in many other places in the world. This used to be due to a lack of supporting infrastructure, what with Australia’s remoteness precluding the required investment, however in more recent times that barrier has begun to melt away. The problem many startups face in Australia is that acquiring funding is extremely problematic as Australia’s risk averse investing style has meant that our large capital reserves aren’t used to invest in such ventures. Previous governments haven’t done much to change this, preferring to support already established businesses, however in his recent budget response Bill Shorten showed vision that few of his contemporaries have in the form of the Labor’s future technology policy.
At the core of this policy is the Smart Investment Fund, a $500 million allocation that will be used in partnership with venture capital firms and banks to facilitate more investment in early stage startups. I have spoken previously about how something of this nature would be required in order to kick start a Silicon Valley equivalent here in Australia and the policy that Bill Shorten has proposed lines up with that idea perfectly. Whilst startup investment can never be made risk free making them more attractive, through direct government investment and the partial loan guarantee with banks, will ensure that more of Australia’s capital makes its way into new businesses rather than the traditional investment vehicles.
Of course providing funding for such ideas is only one piece of the puzzle as we’ll need to encourage students to pursue careers in those industries. To this end Labor as put forward a policy to provide numerous scholarships to students who complete degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and then go on to become teachers in their fields. In addition to this Labor is proposing to forgive the HECS/HELP debts of almost 100,000 students studying in this field, something which could provide an incredible leg up for fresh graduates starting their career. Considering that 75% of the fastest growing new jobs are within these fields encouraging students to take up careers is an incredibly smart move and one that the current government should look at adopting.
You might be surprised to hear this but I’m on the fence about coding being added to the national curriculum, mostly because I’m not sure how it’d end up being implemented at the school level. Starting out in coding isn’t the most exciting of adventures and the rote learning approach which many schools use would, I feel, end up with them becoming bored and frustrated rather than energized and intrigued. Of course I’m not a teacher and I’m sure there are many who are more experienced in this field who could design programs that tackled this issue properly. In the end this is something that I’d have to see in action before I could form a solid opinion on it as whilst I’m all for kids being aware of how technology works I also know how quickly they can become bored with such things.
This is what the Australian public needs to see from a party in opposition: clear concise policies that show a valid course of action rather than mud slinging and point wining which have plagued Australian politics for the last 3 terms of government. Whilst these policies might not ever see the light of day it’s good to see that the Labor party is thinking along this direction and hopefully such policies will fuel their campaign come next election. I can only hope that the Liberals take note as whilst any incumbent would loathe to agree with their opposition it’s hard to deny just how solid some of these ideas are.