Mortimer generally follows the novel’s plot and incorporates a lot of its words directly into Fanny’s narration, and her “Pursuit of Love” is better the closer it sticks to the book. Unfortunately, when she strays from it, expanding on Mitford’s story, she has mostly bad ideas.
Her changes, particularly her elaboration of Fanny and Linda’s relationship, push the show in more literal, more lugubrious and, fatally, more melodramatic directions. The tragedy of Linda’s misbegotten attempts at love no longer slips in through the seams of the narrative. Things that were implicit and largely unjudged in the book, filtered through layers of stiff-upper-lip irony — Fanny’s self-pity, Linda’s obliviousness — are now foregrounded and, for the most part, rendered banal, with “Beaches”-level platitudes and sentimentality. Mortimer casts herself as the Bolter, in a role whose expansion has no obvious point beyond increasing our sympathy for Fanny.
Daily Word Challenge
Can you correctly use the word lugubrious in a sentence?
Based on the definition and example provided, write a sentence using today’s Word of the Day and share it as a comment on this article. It is most important that your sentence makes sense and demonstrates that you understand the word’s definition, but we also encourage you to be creative and have fun.
Then, read some of the other sentences students have submitted and use the “Recommend” button to vote for two original sentences that stand out to you.
If you want a better idea of how lugubrious can be used in a sentence, read these usage examples on Vocabulary.com.
Students ages 13 and older in the United States and the United Kingdom, and 16 and older elsewhere, can comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff.
4. How did the creators reboot the original comic book series to counter these stereotypes? Why was it important for the creative team that the updated character of Shang-Chi be “relatable — even funny”?
5. The article concludes with a quotation from the screenwriter David Callaham reflecting on his experience creating the script and realizing how one scene mirrored his own lived experiences:
“I suddenly felt myself overwhelmed with emotion,” he continued. “Generally I’m hired to write a movie-star role so that we can attract a movie star, and typically those have not been Asian faces. It’s usually a beautiful white man named Chris or something. And all power to those guys, but I’ve always had to put myself in a position of imagining what it would be like to be somebody else. This was the first time in my life I’ve been able to sit back and not have to imagine it anymore.”
What is your reaction to Mr. Callaham’s quote? Why is it important to see, and in this case write, oneself onscreen?
6. Have you seen “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings”? If so, what was your reaction? Do you think that it successfully broke stereotypes? If you haven’t seen it, does reading the article make you want to? Why or why not?
Shang-Chi isn’t the first Asian protagonist we’ve seen on a screen. But as a big-budget, big-screen Marvel superhero, he’ll be ubiquitous. Superheroes today are on every screen, device and platform, visible to every demographic in our society. Shang-Chi will usher in the next cinematic phase of the most successful franchise in global history. In his wake will come more Asian heroes: Gemma Chan and Kumail Nanjiani as Sersi and Kingo in “Eternals,” Iman Vellani as Ms. Marvel in “The Marvels.” Their casting ensures that a generation of young Asian Americans will, for the first time, see themselves front and center, larger than life, on the biggest of screens.
So will the rest of the world, which is arguably even more important — when people see us as heroes, they’re forced to see us as humans.
That can mean the difference between life and death. Throughout our history in this country, Asian Americans have seen the dire consequences of compliance and invisibility: exploitation, exclusion, internment. We’re seeing them again today in the time of Covid, as the pandemic has underscored our country’s xenophobic hostility, and unleashed a wave of violence against the most vulnerable in our communities.
Read the entire article, and then respond to one or more of the following prompts in writing or through discussion:
Do you agree with Mr. Yang that it is important for people to “see themselves front and center, larger than life, on the biggest of screens”? What difference does it make for young viewers? For you personally?
Mr. Yang writes that “when people see us as heroes, they’re forced to see us as humans.” How do you think heroes like Shang-Chi can shatter stereotypes, discrimination and even violence toward Asians?
Mr. Yang writes:
“When I and many of my Asian American peers were growing up, we were so hungry to see ourselves represented that we’d scream and call the family to join us in the living room when an Asian guest star wandered into a scene on TV or a commercial came on featuring an Asian family.”
Do Mr. Yang’s experiences with movies, television and popular culture in general resonate with your own in any way? Do you see yourself reflected in the characters, themes and stories of superhero comic books, television shows and movies? Does the identity — race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality — of a comic book character matter to you?
Do you feel that we need a more diverse universe of superheroes? Why or why not? Do you think Marvel, DC and other companies have a responsibility to ensure that their products are culturally and socially representative?
Additional Teaching and Learning Opportunities
Challenge existing stereotypes. Return to your list of stereotypes from the warm-up activity: What comic book or superhero stereotype would you most like to see go and why? If inspired, write a letter to Marvel or DC explaining your thoughts and calling for a change.
Pitch a superhero reboot to a comic book or movie company.Is there a superhero you would like to see rebooted or reinvented? Or do you perhaps have an idea for a brand-new character? Pitch an idea for a character, story or film that would break stereotypes. Describe the stereotype, where you have seen it, and explain how your idea transforms, subverts or breaks free from it. If inspired, include a sketch or a drawing of your character.
Learn more about being Asian in America today. The article “How It Feels to Be Asian in Today’s America,” offers 27 perspectives on fear, pride, identity and belonging from Times readers. How do these reflections resonate with your own experiences and identity? How does the article add to your understanding of stereotypes and the Asian American community? What further questions does it raise for you?
What is your relationship with social media like? Which platforms do you spend the most time on? Which do you stay away from? How often do you log on?
What do you notice about your mental health and well-being when spending time on social networks?
In “Facebook Delays Instagram App for Users 13 and Younger,” Adam Satariano and Ryan Mac write about the findings of an internal study conducted by Facebook and what they mean for the Instagram Kids app that the company was developing:
Facebook said on Monday that it had paused development of an Instagram Kids service that would be tailored for children 13 years old or younger, as the social network increasingly faces questions about the app’s effect on young people’s mental health.
The pullback preceded a congressional hearing this week about internal research conducted by Facebook, and reported in The Wall Street Journal, that showed the company knew of the harmful mental health effects that Instagram was having on teenage girls. The revelations have set off a public relations crisis for the Silicon Valley company and led to a fresh round of calls for new regulation.
Facebook said it still wanted to build an Instagram product intended for children that would have a more “age appropriate experience,” but was postponing the plans in the face of criticism.
The article continues:
With Instagram Kids, Facebook had argued that young people were using the photo-sharing app anyway, despite age-requirement rules, so it would be better to develop a version more suitable for them. Facebook said the “kids” app was intended for ages 10 to 12 and would require parental permission to join, forgo ads and carry more age-appropriate content and features. Parents would be able to control what accounts their child followed. YouTube, which Google owns, has released a children’s version of its app.
But since BuzzFeed broke the news this year that Facebook was working on the app, the company has faced scrutiny. Policymakers, regulators, child safety groups and consumer rights groups have argued that it hooks children on the app at a younger age rather than protecting them from problems with the service, including child predatory grooming, bullying and body shaming.
The article goes on to quote Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram:
Mr. Mosseri said on Monday that the “the project leaked way before we knew what it would be” and that the company had “few answers” for the public at the time.
Opposition to Facebook’s plans gained momentum this month when The Journal published articles based on leaked internal documents that showed Facebook knew about many of the harms it was causing. Facebook’s internal research showed that Instagram, in particular, had caused teen girls to feel worse about their bodies and led to increased rates of anxiety and depression, even while company executives publicly tried to minimize the app’s downsides.
But concerns about the effect of social media on young people go beyond Instagram Kids, the article notes:
A children’s version of Instagram would not fix more systemic problems, said Al Mik, a spokesman for 5Rights Foundation, a London group focused on digital rights issues for children. The group published a report in July showing that children as young as 13 were targeted within 24 hours of creating an account with harmful content, including material related to eating disorders, extreme diets, sexualized imagery, body shaming, self-harm and suicide.
“Big Tobacco understood that the younger you got to someone, the easier you could get them addicted to become a lifelong user,” Doug Peterson, Nebraska’s attorney general, said in an interview. “I see some comparisons to social media platforms.”
In May, attorneys general from 44 states and jurisdictions had signed a letter to Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, asking him to end plans for building an Instagram app for children.
American policymakers should pass tougher laws to restrict how tech platforms target children, said Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay, a Boston-based group that was part of an international coalition of children’s and consumer groups opposed to the new app. Last year, Britain adopted an Age Appropriate Design Code, which requires added privacy protections for digital services used by people under the age of 18.
Do you think Facebook made the right decision in halting the development of the Instagram Kids app? Do you think there should be social media apps for children 13 and younger? Why or why not?
What is your reaction to the research that found that Instagram can have harmful mental health effects on teenagers, particularly teenage girls? Have you experienced body image issues, anxiety or depression tied to your use of the app? How do you think social media affects your mental health?
What has your experience been on different social media apps? Are there apps that have a more positive or negative effect on your well-being? What do you think could explain these differences?
Have you ever been targeted with inappropriate or harmful content on Instagram or other social media apps? What responsibility do you think social media companies have to address these issues? Do you think there should be more protections in place for users under 18? Why or why not?
What does healthy social media engagement look like for you? What habits do you have around social media that you feel proud of? What behaviors would you like to change? How involved are your parents in your social media use? How involved do you think they should be?
If you were in charge of making Instagram, or another social media app, safer for teenagers, what changes would you make?
4. Next, join the conversation by clicking on the comment button and posting in the box that opens on the right. (Students 13 and older are invited to comment, although teachers of younger students are welcome to post what their students have to say.)
5. After you have posted, try reading back to see what others have said, then respond to someone else by posting another comment. Use the “Reply” button or the @ symbol to address that student directly.
Homelessness in the United States takes many forms. For Elizabeth Herrera, David Lima and their four children, housing instability has meant moving between unsafe apartments, motels, relatives’ couches, shelters, the streets and their car. After 15 years of this uncertainty, the family moved into their first stable housing — an apartment in the San Francisco Bay Area — in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.
Though they’ve always worked, the Herrera-Limas faced unprecedented and rapidly rising housing costs and the challenges of building good credit and job insecurity. These issues kept the family from developing permanent roots in the Bay Area, where top income earners make 12.2 times more than the lowest earners, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. They faced a life many Americans can’t imagine, but they always believed that together they could create a home for their family — with or without a house.
The short documentary above is a personal account of homelessness, family and inequality. Intimately filmed by Ms. Herrera, the film challenges our assumptions about what homelessness looks like, who can experience it and how to keep a family together under extraordinary circumstances.
Students 13 and older in the United States and Britain, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.
The resurrection of the wooly mammoth feels both dystopian and unattainable. But that is what our current science is, producing dystopian-like research to find what seems like unattainable findings. It’s strange to think about. Which animal, who has been dead for thousands of years, gets the chance to come alive again-where do you draw the line? Is it unethical to release such a creature without knowing the implications it will have on our earth? While the resurrection will positively impact global warming, it will change the ecosystems and economics of the Siberian tundra forever. With all the unknowns, bringing back the wooly mammoth-or any extinct animal- is outside the ethics of scientific discovery.
Although I am full of excitement and hope to see the resurrected ancient species, I think genetic engineering is still a field that has not seen it’s full potential yet, and such innovative milestone will gather more attention and fund to more of these genetic projects. But when will we know how to stop is the issue. How will be able to say resurrecting a mammoth is right, while designing a baby to eliminate congenital disease is unethical. What is the rules we have for the field of DNA modification. It’s best, I believe, to make proper rules even before this ancient beast is brought back to this world.
[W]e can’t disregard the fact that this project, if it proves to be a success, would open up a gateway through our current bioethical barriers. What’s to stop someone from trying to replicate dead humans, when you could make the argument that it benefits us in some way? Animals go extinct for a reason, whether it be because they can’t adapt, or because they are wiped out by some natural disaster, and bringing them back into an entirely different world is unpredictable, and not worth the risks that it poses; not when there are other, more plausible solutions to the problem.
Assessing the Potential Dangers of Reintroducing Species
Scientists are only predicting and not analyzing what Wooly Mammoths could do for the environment. Because of how speculative it is, its potential dangers are almost innumerable. Take the Burmese Python as an example for invasive species. It was accidentally released into Florida and ran uncontrollably rampant all over the Everglades region, now threatening many of the local species. It is still a pressing issue today, showing how even with our technology, controlling disasters like these is near impossible.
Although there might be some short term benefit to nature, the true result is very unpredictable and won’t really go the way that the researchers expect it to go. In an ecosystem, each organism has its own niche or role, and is related to another organism in the food cycle, which is basically how the whole ecosystem regulates and maintains its structure. Any disruption to this food cycle, will just end up causing long term issues to the ecosystem, as it alter the lives of all the other organisms in a fashion that we cannot predict, as they will be exposed to this completely new creature.
In a sentence: Not Yet. Keeping personal beliefs on the morality and ethics of such efforts aside, let us consider the practical consequences of this issue. Potentially reintroducing a long-extinct species into our worldś current ecosystem would undoubtably impact all living organisms on earth in a manner we cannot predict. On one hand, it could be argued that the purpose of science is to continually expand our understanding of the world and whatś possible in it. Overall, giving back life to species is not a decision that can be taken back, Unless we have a solid reasoning for why genetically resurrecting species would be in our best interests, it would be better to wait. Jurassic Park said it best, ¨Just because we can, doesn´t mean we should¨.
No, we should not bring animals back from extinction. We should be more focused on saving the ones about to go extinct rather than the ones that already are. Most animals went extinct because of climate change. Thanks to humans not working to correct the problem with climate change but making it worse, we are slowly killing everything and everyone. Those animals that have gone extinct have served their time and purpose on earth. Therefore, we should spend our time and resources focusing on those that are about to go extinct. We are about to lose Lemurs, polar bears, gorillas, etcetera. Humans should be figuring out a way to save their habitats, preserve their food sources, and do whatever else it takes to keep these animals, along with others from, becoming extinct.
1. After looking closely at the image above (or at the full-size image), think about these three questions:
2. Next, join the conversation by clicking on the comment button and posting in the box that opens on the right. (Students 13 and older are invited to comment, although teachers of younger students are welcome to post what their students have to say.)
3. After you have posted, try reading back to see what others have said, then respond to someone else by posting another comment. Use the “Reply” button or the @ symbol to address that student directly.
Each Monday, our collaborator, Visual Thinking Strategies, will facilitate a discussion from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern time by paraphrasing comments and linking to responses to help students’ understanding go deeper. You might use their responses as models for your own.
4. On Thursday afternoons, we will reveal at the bottom of this post more information about the photo. How does reading the caption and learning its back story help you see the image differently?
The Reveal
We’ll post more information here on Thursday afternoon. Stay tuned!
Students 13 and older in the United States and the Britain, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.
Washoe was 10 months old when her foster parents began teaching her to talk, and five months later they were already trumpeting her success. Not only had she learned words; she could also string them together, creating expressions like “water birds” when she saw a pair of swans and “open flower” to gain admittance to a garden.
Washoe was a chimpanzee.
She had been born in West Africa, probably orphaned when her mother was killed, sold to a dealer, flown to the United States for use of testing by the Air Force and adopted by R. Allen Gardner and his wife, Beatrix. She was raised as if she were a human child. She craved oatmeal with onions and pumpkin pudding.
“The object of our research was to learn how much chimps are like humans,” Professor Gardner told Nevada Today, a University of Nevada publication, in 2007. “To measure this accurately, chimps would be needed to be raised as human children, and to do that, we needed to share a common language.”
Washoe ultimately learned some 200 words, becoming what researchers said was the first nonhuman to communicate using sign language developed for the deaf.
Professor Gardner, an ethologist who, with his wife, raised the chimpanzee for nearly five years, died on Aug. 20 at his ranch near Reno, Nev. He was 91.
His death was announced by the University of Nevada, Reno, where he had joined the faculty in 1963 and conducted his research until he retired in 2010.
When scientific journals reported in 1967 that Washoe (pronounced WA-sho), named after a county in Nevada, had learned to recognize and use multiple gestures and expressions in sign language, the news electrified the world of psychologists and ethologists who study animal behavior.
The Gardners, who were childless, raised the young ape on their ranch in her early years.
Her ability to form simple phrases — like gesturing “Me, Washoe” when she looked in a mirror — was a linguistic feat that Roger Brown, a Harvard psychologist, told The New York Times was akin to “getting an S.O.S. from outer space.”
“Absolutely frontier-breaking work,” Duane M. Rumbaugh, a scientist emeritus at the Great Ape Trust of Iowa, said in retrospect in 2007.
The Gardners’ findings challenged the premise that humans are uniquely equipped to express themselves through language. Their research also expanded educators’ understanding of the ways children learn language, and of how to apply that knowledge to people with learning disabilities.
Evidence of the Gardners’ early communication with Washoe was greeted skeptically by some researchers.
Herbert S. Terrace, a Columbia University cognitive psychologist, said at the time — and repeated in a recent email — that only humans can speak spontaneously and use grammar, two mainstays of language.
He said his own analysis had found that “most of the chimpanzee’s signs were artifacts of unconscious cuing by their teachers” and not spontaneous.
Nonetheless, the Gardners were able to replicate their research with four additional infant chimpanzees.
And subsequent studies by the couple and by other researchers — using various methods of communication, like identifying objects through symbols and pressing buttons instead of signing — demonstrated that while chimps and bonobos lacked sufficient physical control over their tongues, lips and larynx to speak vocally like humans, they were capable of understanding the concept of a word and of learning language, and could chat by using hand signals.
Robert Allen Goldberg, known as Allen, was born on Feb. 21, 1930, in Brooklyn. (It is unclear when his surname was changed.) His father was Milton George Goldberg, an industrial engineer and onetime bootlegger. His mother was May (Klein) Goldberg. His younger brother, Herb Gardner, would achieve fame as a playwright.
His parents took Allen with them as they drove around delivering illegal liquor, on the assumption that the police would not suspect a couple with a baby.
He earned a bachelor’s degree from New York University in 1950, a master’s from Columbia in 1951 and a doctorate in 1954 from Northwestern University, where he studied learning theory under the educational psychologist Benton J. Underwood.
He served in the Army as a research psychologist and taught at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, where, at a lecture on love by the psychologist Harry Harlow, he met a fellow teacher, Beatrix (sometimes spelled Beatrice) Tugendhut, known as Trixie.
They married in 1961 and moved to the University of Nevada, where she, a psychologist and zoologist herself, became his research collaborator. She died in 1995.
No immediate family members survive.
Professor Gardner co-founded the Center for Advanced Studies at the University of Nevada in 1984 and was its director from 1990 to 1993.
In 1965, he encouraged a psychology student, Roger Fouts, to begin demonstrating, as his doctoral thesis, that Washoe’s capacity to communicate approached the level of young human children.
But the Gardners concluded that the only way to correlate the ape’s developmental skills with those of children would be to create a comparable environment, and to treat their simian subjects as if they were foster children.
The Gardners published their initial results in the journal Science in 1967 and presented them to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in New York.
In 1974, Washoe was featured on the PBS science series “Nova.” In 1989, the Gardners published the book “Teaching Sign Language to Chimpanzees.” In 1998, three years after his wife died, Professor Gardner published another collaboration, “The Structure of Learning: From Sign Stimuli to Sign Language.”
Washoe lived with the Gardners until she was about 5 years old, then moved to the Chimpanzee and Human Communications Institute of Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Wash. She died in 2007 at 42.
Have you ever taken in a natural vista, say the soaring ranges of a national park, and thought: Three thousand feet of nothingness between me and the ground would really improve this.
For Breannah Yeh, a 24-year-old professional slackliner, such an experience is quite a walk in the park. Ms. Yeh shares her aerial escapades regularly with her 1.7 million followers on her TikTok account Yeh Slacks, often while dressed in overalls and polarized sports sunglasses (which she says she loses regularly).
As you’re starting on your new journey toward becoming a developer, chances are that you’re spending a lot of time on your own in front of the screen. Though it’s nice to have some alone time at the beginning of your new job, is that how developers always work?
The answer is no. While developers do a lot of independent coding at their workstations, it’s also common for development teams (especially Agile development teams) to work together through collaborative coding.
In a nutshell, collaborative coding is an approach to software development where pairs or teams of programmers work together on a project by coding each other’s ideas or editing each other’s code.
In this article, we’ll go through the types of collaborative coding setups, why developers use collaborative coding, and some popular collaborative coding platforms and environments.
Collaborative coding setups
As we explained, collaborative coding involves multiple developers working together on a project. This can happen in a few different ways. Let’s explore some of the most common:
Pair programming
Pair programming involves two developers working at a single workstation. One developer serves as the driver, and the other as the navigator.
The driver uses the workstation and writes code while the navigator reviews the code in real-time. Every so often, the two developers will switch roles, so each has a chance to guide the project’s direction and translate solutions into real code.
In general, the navigator’s job is to define the strategic direction of the code and propose what it should do. The driver, on the other hand, is in charge of the “tactical” aspects and focuses on writing code and making sure it does what it’s supposed to do and follows company guidelines for variable naming, commenting, and so on.
A pair programming project can consist of two developers with similar skills and experience, or it might bring together a senior developer who mentors a junior developer during the project.
Mob programming
The idea behind mob programming is similar to pair programming, except it involves more than two people. At any given time, one driver developer is at the workstation while the other navigator programmers guide the driver to write the code.
While mob programming sounds a bit chaotic, the truth is that it’s an excellent way to bring a development team together to create a better software product. That is, if the mob programming team follows a few rules.
First, they need to follow the driver-navigator principle. For a developer’s idea to make it to the computer, it must go through the hands of another developer. That means that navigators need to communicate their ideas clearly enough for the driver to be able to turn them into code.
At the same time, drivers are encouraged to ask clarifying questions, including the logic behind a particular idea. But, at no point should the driver start writing code that doesn’t follow the direction of the navigators.
Second, mob programming works better when everyone has the chance to navigate. That’s why successful mob programming projects rotate through drivers, often using a strict timer system.
Finally, all communications between team members must be respectful and considerate. Sure, there will be disagreements. In fact, a big advantage of mob programming is that team disagreements can be settled openly and honestly.
Still, everyone on the mob programming team must remember that everyone has something valid to contribute, and it’s vital to stay on the same side.
Code sharing
Unlike pair programming and mob programming, code sharing involves the traditional setup of each developer working on their own machines to write their own code. But, with a code-sharing setup, members of the development team have the opportunity to review, revise, debug, and add to each other’s code.
As you can imagine, code sharing can only work when there’s a solid version control system in place to avoid duplicate work and ensure that everyone is working from the latest code scripts. There are a few specialized platforms designed for code-sharing developers to work either in real-time or asynchronously.
Why collaborative coding works
When faced with a major development project, many teams might think the best approach is to divide and conquer. After all, doesn’t it make more sense to have everyone work on different parts of the project and put it all together in the end?
Not always. While collaborative coding might seem to slow things down, there are quite a few benefits that make it a worthwhile approach.
Better communication
When everyone works on their own code for a development project, poor communication can lead to failure. On the other hand, with collaborative coding, great communication is a requirement.
During a collaborative programming project, everyone hears what everyone else is saying. And because anyone’s ideas must be coded by someone else, everyone needs to clearly explain how they want to approach the project.
Collaborative coding also makes the team communicate their disagreements openly and settle them before the project can move on. The result is a final product that everyone on the team understands and supports.
Faster debugging
When everyone is looking at the same code at the same time, it’s much easier and faster to catch errors. Whether it’s a misplaced comma or a misspelled variable, catching mistakes as they’re made saves the whole team time and frustration later on when there’s much more code to sift through.
Anyone can pick up the project
People take sick days. People go on vacation or get reassigned to other projects. Collaborative coding ensures that everyone on the team understands the entire development project. That way, if someone unexpectedly can’t work on the project, the rest of the team will know exactly where to start up again and how the project is going.
Collaborative coding environments and platforms
At first, collaborative coding was done in person. But now, modern collaborative coding platforms and environments have allowed development teams to connect remotely and securely with each other from anywhere in the world. They include:
Get the skills you need to start your first collaborative coding project
Collaborative coding is a great way to quickly gain programming experience by working with senior programmers and understanding how they approach problems. But how can you get started?
First, you’ll need to master a couple of programming languages. Then, you’ll want to put your skills to use by building a couple of projects, and once you’re confident in your skills, take on a group project.
Try reaching out to other learners on our forums — you might find a more experienced developer who can offer valuable insights.
Looking for a way to improve your web development projects? We’ll show you how with our new course: Learn WebSockets.
WebSockets is a powerful communication protocol you can use to achieve persistent, bidirectional communications between servers and clients. You can find it in many applications that update in real-time, like live sports trackers, chatrooms, and your favorite multiplayer games.
In our new course, we’ll show you how to use WebSockets and HTTP to enable greater connectivity and a wide range of other benefits.
Who is this course right for?
Learn WebSockets was designed for learners who have taken Learn Node.js or already know how to create basic HTTP servers and want to learn how to implement a WebSocket client/server application.
WebSockets is a popular technology, so this course is also great for anyone who wants to give themselves a competitive edge in the job market.
What will you learn from the new course?
WebSockets is a critical element of web development, and learning how to use it will deepen your understanding of HTTP and client-server interactions. By the end of the course, you’ll be able to:
Explain the concepts underlying the WebSocket protocol.
Establish a persistent client/server WebSocket connection.
Send client-to-server and server-to-client messages.
