Propagander: propane fueled gander
34 posts • joined 8 Aug 2020
I have seen data (from Sweden) that supports your first *and* second contention. The strongest predictor for success in school/academia is parents education (IIRC more the mother than father: probably reflecting unequal time spent with the children). But well trained teachers (from day-care/kindergarten and onwards) is just about the only thing that can even begin compensating for that. Reflecting this latter insight Sweden has implemented a school system where for-profit school corporations can hire teachers with no or little training, "select" the easiest students and then give them artificially high grades to ensure university entry. No, of course I'm not bitter, what on earth gave you that idea?
The Internet has the potential to deliver well written and researched texts and videos on a variety of subjects and to point the reader to be most high quality ones. Instead we mostly got FB and YT.
 The messaging says that here we are able to do the work with no assistance, and wording that codes away the poor. Also waiting lists, since mainly certain groups of parents will put their child on such lists early.
Just so I understand you, AC: you equate requiring vaccination with killing?
Despite there being a ton of data saying that the vaccines are reasonably safe? And as the number of vaccinated increases fatalities and ICU admission drop, giving evidence to the advantages of vaccination?
I'm impressed, but not in a good way.
 Nothing is 100% safe, including taking a shower or having sex with the only person that loves you. Even the AstraZeneca vaccine is safer than riding a bicycle to work...
IIRC they sometimes use a lower O2 concentration on submaries, for that reason. And if http://bowlofstew.com/everest-oxygen-concentration and my memory is correct halving the O2 content would "just" but you a bit over the Mt Everst Base camp (around 6000 m). Perfectly survivable for most people, at least short term.
My first thought was "CO2, that would be exiting with certain kinds of fires". Classic chemistry teacher demo: show that a match is extinguished in a flask filled with CO2, then insert a piece of burning magnesium. There is more oxygen in CO2 than in the paltry 20-ish% atmosphere.
Science bonus is then showing the black spots on the inside of the flask, and asking (a) what are they, and (b) where did it come from.
It would be trivial(ish) to determine the normal distribution of such subpopulations in employee pools larger than n, and then write the specs to match (e.g. within 95% interval, perhaps a sliding scale of tax bonus/malus). Update every <mumble> year.
Problem is that you would then make it mandatory for employers to track their staffs sexual preferences (if that was included). Age and ethnicity sounds more reasonable.
 Imagine seeing the job ad: "we are looking for a female LGBT+ in the age-bracket 45-60...". And some tax inspector asking for proof of sexual preferences.
But giving someone a small piece of the moon *can* be used as a romantic-funny gift if presented in the proper way. At most worth the paper it is printed on, sure, but still.
Then, if someone in the future builds a gigant shopping mall just on *my* acre of the moon my decendants will have it made.
"Doctor" is problematic as a title/honorific.
Is someone with a Ph.D. in quantum physics or English literature a doctor? Is someone who has finished medical school and obtained the required license (but done no independent research on par with that of the Ph.D.) a doctor in that sense, even if the official title is "Medical Doctor"? And then there is the subpopulation of M.D.s that has obtained a Ph.D. in medicine as well...
Some jurisdictions does not officially use the title "doctor" for all physicians, reserving it for the scientific research degree. Personally I think this is sound, and allows for stringent rules on who can claim to be a physician (or whatever equivalent term is used). Judging the relative merits of a Ph.D. from Oxford, MIT or Shithole University of Outer Bumfuck is then a separate task, one which the relevant employers are fairly well versed in.
Two reasons why not
1. That would require that that he saw other people as both important and real.
2. How would he personally and directly benefit from others having a better life?
And don't come with silly things like everyone benefits from a better world: he can afford to make his litlte bubble better for *him*, for his lifetime. I strongly suspect that nothing else matters to him.
I actually did that for a card with a PIN that I *very* seldom used. Ok, it was the pin old school encrypted by adding a number (not "1234" or "13"... :-) to it. Sure, not hard crypto, but you only get a few attempts before the ATM keeps the card....
Agreed. Would we persist is referring to a co-worker by a derogatory nickname that that person had asked us to stop using? For most I hope the answer would be "no". Would stopping solve the problem of workplace harassment? No, of course not. But every bit helps. If I, for pretty much no cost or effort, could be less of an asshole to someone, why should I chose *not* to?
And I doubt anyone is expected to reprint textbooks (as suggested below), but the next edition is easily fixed, and so is the website.
It will also tend to interpret e.g. 10-12 as a date regardless of any preferences on your side. In my case I was making a list of rack positions for test tubes (rack 10, position 12), and saw it happen as I typed and told Excel to keep its lousy excuse for smarts to itself.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021