3 ms·

All good areas of inquiry. You call for a stronger chain of reasoning connecting the free online courses to federal funding. I'll start by setting myself back a

by ahelwer 10y ago

All good areas of inquiry. You call for a stronger chain of reasoning connecting the free online courses to federal funding. I'll start by setting myself back a bit: I don't think Harvard and MIT receive federal funding earmarked for educational services, only research. We can toss in a caveat characterizing federal student loans as funding, but it doesn't change the central issue: no federal funds are explicitly earmarked for free online courses. All that said, it isn't obvious why this should be an issue; the above classification function is significantly weaker than that used in real life, and federal funding binding an entire organization avoids the hairy problems that come with tracking what money goes where in fungible currency. Organizations know the strings attached to federal dollars before choosing to accept them. So yes, receiving federal funding for programs A, B, and C require programs X, Y, and Z to fall under federal purview and penalty. You raise a possible distinction between free online courses, which you reduce to releasing information, and services. This might be delving into semantic argument territory. I would say the onus is on you here to argue why free online courses should not be considered a service offered by the university and thus possibly not subject to accessibility requirements.

bobwaycott 10y ago
I'll accept the onus and point you toward my tackling that matter in some depth in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12720879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12720879 Edit: Please forgive posting a link to another comment. I'm pointing to the other comment only because I feel it is quite thorough, and am not sure the conversation is helped by duplicating the same sentiments, thoughts, and questions. Edit 2: I hope my consideration of the issues and perspectives can pass the smell test of invoking a semantic argument. I genuinely find this particular issue to be one that is nuanced and important, and do not wish to subvert reasoned consideration by quibbling too much over words. Suffice to say, I think this is far more a matter of situational and conceptual difference, not just whether we should rightly use a word to indicate a thing.
- ahelwer 10y ago
  Well, I was being a bit unfair. Semantic arguments aren't useless per se when value is derived from satisfying a definition or not (as might be the case here). I will take a look at your linked comment.

by ahelwer 10y ago

bobwaycott 10y ago

I'll accept the onus and point you toward my tackling that matter in some depth in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12720879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12720879 Edit: Please forgive posting a link to another comment. I'm pointing to the other comment only because I feel it is quite thorough, and am not sure the conversation is helped by duplicating the same sentiments, thoughts, and questions. Edit 2: I hope my consideration of the issues and perspectives can pass the smell test of invoking a semantic argument. I genuinely find this particular issue to be one that is nuanced and important, and do not wish to subvert reasoned consideration by quibbling too much over words. Suffice to say, I think this is far more a matter of situational and conceptual difference, not just whether we should rightly use a word to indicate a thing.

ahelwer 10y ago
Well, I was being a bit unfair. Semantic arguments aren't useless per se when value is derived from satisfying a definition or not (as might be the case here). I will take a look at your linked comment.