I agree, but in the other direction.
Why bother wasting time reporting on something so meaningless at all, especially when the numbers will be fake?
COVID is endemic. It can't be reported upon at this point because it's rampant and widespread. People are getting it every day and will never be reported to any sort of government because a few days bed rest (or alternatively, nothing at all because it either isn't symptomatic or is so mild as to be ignored totally) isn't any reason to be in contact with any government, not even a hospital. Any number will be meaningless, and thus a waste of money to collect, aggregate, and publish.
Why bother wasting time reporting on something so meaningless at all, especially when the numbers will be fake?
COVID is endemic. It can't be reported upon at this point because it's rampant and widespread. People are getting it every day and will never be reported to any sort of government because a few days bed rest (or alternatively, nothing at all because it either isn't symptomatic or is so mild as to be ignored totally) isn't any reason to be in contact with any government, not even a hospital. Any number will be meaningless, and thus a waste of money to collect, aggregate, and publish.
Ginger beef is awesome, especially crispy ginger beef.
The only problem with it is it's so good you'll want it all the time and it's not exactly healthy, especially when put over rice or noodles.
The only problem with it is it's so good you'll want it all the time and it's not exactly healthy, especially when put over rice or noodles.
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Fuhrer Trudeau The Wise? I thought not. It's not a story the constitutionalists would tell you. It's a Fascist legend. Fuhrer Trudeau was a Fuhrer, so powerful and so wise he could use the State to influence the banks to silence peaceful protesters… He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from being criticised. The dark side of the State is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. He became so powerful… the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his pomeranian lapdog in a turban everything he knew, then his pomeranian lapdog canceled him in his sleep. Ironic. He could save others from cricicism, but not himself.
I read that book in college, I found it really interesting. I'm surprised we don't see more works investigating the difference in gender roles from a working perspective given the times we live in.
She seemed like a nice lady in her book.
She seemed like a nice lady in her book.
Tbh, the thing the west needs more than schools (not that it doesn't need those, but bear with me) is entry level jobs that turn unskilled workers or workers with some education into skilled workers.
Companies cry crocodile tears for skilled workers but don't do this, so what are they actually crying for? It's obvious to me what they actually want.
Companies cry crocodile tears for skilled workers but don't do this, so what are they actually crying for? It's obvious to me what they actually want.
Ultimately, the only ones we can control is ourselves. It's difficult to be virtuous -- it's difficult even defining what is virtuous. If you can do those two things you may not take over the planet and direct everything that happens to everyone everywhere, but it can have a greater actual effect over time.
That reminds me of when I graduated from college. The oil and gas companies were all hiring, and everyone knew there was insane money to be made in oil and gas. Haliburton in particular was looking for people.
Money or no, you need to be able to sleep at night, and with the war in Iraq still fresh in my memory there was absolutely no way they were getting an application.
Money or no, you need to be able to sleep at night, and with the war in Iraq still fresh in my memory there was absolutely no way they were getting an application.
My goodness, I totally agree with this point in many regards.
The writers of textbooks basically don't make any money off of it, it's just the prestige or the possibility of making the course materials you want for the program you want to teach. People authoring papers for journals definitely don't get paid and will pay out of pocket preparing an article.
That being the case, there's no reasonable excuse for the textbooks costing $100. Amazon is one example of an on-demand printer, and I can order a new copy of my book today and have it in my hands by next Friday. Yes, Amazon is Amazon, and my book isn't quite on the same level as a school textbook in many ways including size, color print quality, and length, but even compensating for those differences, you could buy your entire year's schoolbooks for the cost of a couple of the insane overpriced garbage that is sometimes but not always available from the college bookstore.
Another thing I strongly believe is that the culture needs to change around journal articles. You read the articles and it's pretty clear even if you have an understanding of the source material that they complicate the material for no good reason. Often it's obvious people use a 22 letter word where two or three 6 letter words would be better choices. The only conclusion I can come to is people are trying to prove how smart they are with their language rather than the work they're doing. That ends up siloing research such that even if you're a practicioner in the field, you pretty much need the most expensive education just to get the mental thesaurus to convert the 22 letter words to 6 letter words in your head.
The writers of textbooks basically don't make any money off of it, it's just the prestige or the possibility of making the course materials you want for the program you want to teach. People authoring papers for journals definitely don't get paid and will pay out of pocket preparing an article.
That being the case, there's no reasonable excuse for the textbooks costing $100. Amazon is one example of an on-demand printer, and I can order a new copy of my book today and have it in my hands by next Friday. Yes, Amazon is Amazon, and my book isn't quite on the same level as a school textbook in many ways including size, color print quality, and length, but even compensating for those differences, you could buy your entire year's schoolbooks for the cost of a couple of the insane overpriced garbage that is sometimes but not always available from the college bookstore.
Another thing I strongly believe is that the culture needs to change around journal articles. You read the articles and it's pretty clear even if you have an understanding of the source material that they complicate the material for no good reason. Often it's obvious people use a 22 letter word where two or three 6 letter words would be better choices. The only conclusion I can come to is people are trying to prove how smart they are with their language rather than the work they're doing. That ends up siloing research such that even if you're a practicioner in the field, you pretty much need the most expensive education just to get the mental thesaurus to convert the 22 letter words to 6 letter words in your head.
I'm not really saying high fees. A couple grand for a semester or even a year would be plenty to keep people who just don't care out. They could spend that kind of money on a lot of fun stuff or as a deposit on their own place or any one of a bunch of things. Perhaps even end any public student loan programs since we know they only serve to drive up prices and fund an administrative class that doesn't add any value to an education.
When I went to school, we started with 8 classes of 45 students. 3/4 of them were gone by the end of the first semester. Being able to have a "cooldown period" where you can pull the funds out and drop out if you realize you're not going to be able to do anything would make sense. Even if it meant more funding up-front, it could help people who aren't going to make it jump ship faster.
The schools cry poor, but if you run the numbers (including massive government subsidies per-student) it quickly becomes clear someone other than the teacher is getting rich.
When I went to school, we started with 8 classes of 45 students. 3/4 of them were gone by the end of the first semester. Being able to have a "cooldown period" where you can pull the funds out and drop out if you realize you're not going to be able to do anything would make sense. Even if it meant more funding up-front, it could help people who aren't going to make it jump ship faster.
The schools cry poor, but if you run the numbers (including massive government subsidies per-student) it quickly becomes clear someone other than the teacher is getting rich.
I wouldn't agree with totally free, but I would absolutely agree with heavily, heavily subsidized. The cost should be enough that anyone could afford it working over the summer in a job a student could get, so kids can work put themselves through school with minimal help from parents besides food and shelter. Without ensuring that students have some skin in the game, I think a system would end up clogged up with people who don't really want to be there or people who don't have the aptitude for the courses they've taken.
Such subsidized systems exist in a few countries, and allow people to achieve post-secondary education without ending their lives due to crippling debt if they don't succeed in school or don't succeed in getting a decent job after school, or if they do succeed but school prices just went too crazy.
Such subsidized systems exist in a few countries, and allow people to achieve post-secondary education without ending their lives due to crippling debt if they don't succeed in school or don't succeed in getting a decent job after school, or if they do succeed but school prices just went too crazy.
It seems to me like we are getting very close to being able to roll over to Open source hardware as well, where you can get something that you can have every line of code and every schematic for and still have something that's a reasonably functional.
I don't think I've ever understood free as in libre more than the last few years.
I don't think I've ever understood free as in libre more than the last few years.
I was under the impression that the issue with eugenics wasn't the idea that you can breed in good qualities and breed out bad qualities, but rather that it's immoral for some self proclaimed authority to start sticking it's fingers into reproduction, particularly if it's a government telling people who can and can not breed with who.
The idea that eugenics doesn't work is clearly false once you take away the moral question about it being state enforced. We breed dogs for certain qualities, and cows, and most of our fruits and vegetables are specifically bred to be better sources of food.
The idea that eugenics doesn't work is clearly false once you take away the moral question about it being state enforced. We breed dogs for certain qualities, and cows, and most of our fruits and vegetables are specifically bred to be better sources of food.
I would bet it's really dependent on the mechanism of the color degradation. If this is due to crystalization of the plastic in the sun or it's due to scratches accumulating over years, then quickly melting a top layer of plastic could have big results. For C64s, bromine molecules that are in the plastic as a fire retardant migrate to the surface and retrobriting involves bleaching away those molecules.
But I dunno. It's sorta neat!
But I dunno. It's sorta neat!
When people say "Nobody could have known" or "Nobody predicted", that's a lie. Of course it's a lie. All the smart people on the entire planet ever even conceived that an obvious outcome of a series of actions could take place?
Doesn't even matter if it's this. Could be a lot of things. Of course someone predicted it.
Doesn't even matter if it's this. Could be a lot of things. Of course someone predicted it.
Aluminium was once a precious metal more valuable than gold.
The top of the Washington monument is aluminium purchased during those days, and Napoleon had a set of aluminium plates that was reserved for his most distinguished guests.
At that time, if you said "Aluminium is worthless, it's just shiny" then probably the same people would have agreed, but what happened later was the bauxite process for aluminium extraction made it possible for aluminium to be produced at prices far lower than before, and in massive quantities.
Now, it's true that Aluminium was no longer a precious metal more valuable than gold, but rather than prove worthless, in many ways it was only once it was inexpensively available at industrial volumes that its true worth as a light, easy to machine and cast, highly corrosion resistant material became apparent and it was used in everything from drink containers to vehicles.
So gold is valuable because it's rare, but it would arguably be worth way more as a highly maleable, highly corrosion resistant metal available at industrial quantities.
Ok, I'm done my rant that probably doesn't really have much with the conversation.
The top of the Washington monument is aluminium purchased during those days, and Napoleon had a set of aluminium plates that was reserved for his most distinguished guests.
At that time, if you said "Aluminium is worthless, it's just shiny" then probably the same people would have agreed, but what happened later was the bauxite process for aluminium extraction made it possible for aluminium to be produced at prices far lower than before, and in massive quantities.
Now, it's true that Aluminium was no longer a precious metal more valuable than gold, but rather than prove worthless, in many ways it was only once it was inexpensively available at industrial volumes that its true worth as a light, easy to machine and cast, highly corrosion resistant material became apparent and it was used in everything from drink containers to vehicles.
So gold is valuable because it's rare, but it would arguably be worth way more as a highly maleable, highly corrosion resistant metal available at industrial quantities.
Ok, I'm done my rant that probably doesn't really have much with the conversation.
I got in a discussion earlier this week, and was surprised to discover that people don't realize that student loan debt forgiveness would be a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
Reality check for a second: Student loan debt forgiveness is a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
There are some sob stories out there of people getting useless educations at massive expense, but reality is that college educated individuals still have the lowest unemployment rate and the highest incomes. That's indisputable.
Some people might counter saying that the rich wouldn't have student loans. That isn't true. If you're wealthy and you can get someone else to pay for something, you do. Especially if it's the government. Once you have student loans, you could pay them off, but your financial planner is going to advise against it because of something called opportunity cost. If you spend the money to pay off your student loans right away, then that money won't be available to invest, and if your student loans are charging 4% and you can make 7% in a balanced and diversified portfolio over time, you're basically giving money away by paying off the loans.
I've seen people saying that the rich don't have debt. That's absurd. Of course the rich have debt. Again, if you can use someone else's money then that's how you get really filthy rich.
So poor people pay for inflation that will be part of the way government pays for student loan forgiveness. Poor people will be paying taxes as well. Poor people's kids will be on the hook for the federal debt. And all so we can give people who are statistically speaking the most likely to be rich a bunch of money.
Odd, isn't it?
Reality check for a second: Student loan debt forgiveness is a massive wealth transfer to the rich.
There are some sob stories out there of people getting useless educations at massive expense, but reality is that college educated individuals still have the lowest unemployment rate and the highest incomes. That's indisputable.
Some people might counter saying that the rich wouldn't have student loans. That isn't true. If you're wealthy and you can get someone else to pay for something, you do. Especially if it's the government. Once you have student loans, you could pay them off, but your financial planner is going to advise against it because of something called opportunity cost. If you spend the money to pay off your student loans right away, then that money won't be available to invest, and if your student loans are charging 4% and you can make 7% in a balanced and diversified portfolio over time, you're basically giving money away by paying off the loans.
I've seen people saying that the rich don't have debt. That's absurd. Of course the rich have debt. Again, if you can use someone else's money then that's how you get really filthy rich.
So poor people pay for inflation that will be part of the way government pays for student loan forgiveness. Poor people will be paying taxes as well. Poor people's kids will be on the hook for the federal debt. And all so we can give people who are statistically speaking the most likely to be rich a bunch of money.
Odd, isn't it?
Bigger question: How do people like this get away with calling anyone anywhere a "conspiracy theorist"?