I don't want to write an in depth comment without receipts, but I swear I watched a breadtuber deep dive into how he put those women in horrible situations, and they also touched on his personal life. I cannot for the life of me find the video though, but the information I remember is pretty damning. If anyone knows what I'm referring to, please post a link. I'm not trying to dismiss this act if it's a genuine thing, but I would love to know I'm not hallucinating this video.
If you're looking at people in developed countries where more kids doesn't necessarily mean more labor, the difference can also be somewhat explained by religion and quality of life concerns. Extremely religious people in the us, who tend to be less educated and have lower incomes, may not believe in contraception and believe that "god will provide". That may sound like an exaggeration, but I personally know someone with 7 kids who cannot afford to feed them but thinks that they will go to hell if they use condoms and denying their husband is also a sin somehow. They just talk about how god intended for their family to struggle. That's not a mindset you generally see in high income families.
The other factor is quality of life (and yes, education). If you're making enough to afford a home and a good education for 1-2 children, you may be looking to give your child a good life and a good springboard for their future. If you know that no matter what you do, you will never be able to afford a college education for your child, then that makes having a child "less expensive" in that regard. You know you won't be able to afford sports or extracurricular activity equipment, or new clothes, so while a family earning more may spend a smaller percentage of their income on any single child, the resources they are expecting to be able to provide them increase. A lot of low income families may have the approach that if a child is fed they've done the thing. Check mark on parenting for the day. If that's the approach to parenting then it's less resource intensive than a more involved approach that some high income families may have. I want to be clear that this is not a moral failing or some kind of judgement being passed. I think a lot of people don't realize the day to day of very low income families. There are still people in the US raising families with no access to electricity or even running water. They have a very different background and understanding of what a family looks like. I don't think they are inherently evil for having more kids and being unable to provide for them in the way others may expect, but I also think that's not an excuse to allow children to live in unsafe conditions. I legitimately believe that if we had better education in low income and rural areas that you'd see this disparity drop, as they learn the different options education can provide and strive to ensure their own children get the best education and support possible.
Fine Meta, sure, but also fine everyone who suggested it, did it, supported it, or knew about it. People need to be held personally responsible for illegal actions they do when acting on behalf of a company. Like all the people who knew about issues with the Boeing planes. Also, fines should be based off earnings, not just profits. If you stole something from me, sold it for 1 million and then paid yourself 999k as a sellers fee, why should I get just a percentage of the remainder? I should get all of what you earned and then some to make up for the fact I was stolen from. I don't care that you already spent the 999k. It's mine and belongs to me. Maybe then investors would care more about the scruples of the companies they are flooding with cash.
I feel like that may be worse. Kind of like how if you have certain security measures while browsing the web it's almost easier to fingerprint you. It'll get a good idea of your age and that'll be enough rather than sticking to a specific lie. Just always be 3 years older with one additional sibling or a sibling of the opposite sex. If the sex of your sibling is relevant just describe them as a close family friend or close cousin in that instance. I can't say for sure, but if I had to guess having a static lie is maybe more obfuscation than a variable one. Though even posting on this thread is bad opsec.
Though I think your first point is mostly semantics, I do it's ok if some things are expected to be memorized. What do you mean by:
Repetitive reading with no application intended just for memorization is a massive waste of time.
Is the class and test not the intended application? I bet most people who learn about DNA or Golgi bodies never apply that information outside of school. Most people who took an art history class had to learn about cubism and likely haven't uttered the word since. What about the difference between igneous and sedimentary rock? I think these classes are important, but you cannot expect people to have the time to build up an understanding of all of these subjects from first principles. At a certain point you have to memorize something. Even if you went to a volcano and watched the magma cool yourself, you'd still have to remember what the result is called. If a student can define a term and identify it in action when they see it, I don't think they need to have done any original research on it, and most coursework (lectures/videos/homework) gives them the tools to be able to define and identify it. It's about exposure and exploration, and for that kind of surface level understanding I think the coursework for most classes counts as sufficient "putting in the work".
What does useful mean in this context:
By all means use AI tools to do schoolworks if and when they're useful
My point is that they are not useful because they don't help you learn the material. What is the "valuable part of this"? It literally just does the work for them. AI repeatedly makes factual errors, so I wouldn't even trust it to rephrase something, much less teach it to me, especially when there are a lot of trustworthy educational tools and sites out there.
Really hate the framing of the title, though the article is a bit more nuanced. AI may be able to "do your homework" in the same way a robot may be able to "eat your dinner", but it cannot do these things for you, only independent of you. No one can "do your homework for you" because the point of homework is to help you understand the information through exercise. Saying it's done because all questions were answered is like saying you had dinner because a robot removed the food from your plate. You are not getting the actual point of the exercise, the way you're not getting the nutrition from the food. You can argue about how helpful/nutritious the work/food is, but to argue that the work/food is not necessary is a blatant lie told to you by people trying to starve you.
This idea that "memorizing things is bad" and that memorizing can be offloaded comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of education. In order to understand things we have to know certain things. Even first had experiences are "committed to memory" so that you can draw from that information later. These people are attempting to rob others of an education and the ability to understand the world around them. I don't know how they can live with themselves.
I'm in a safe Dem area. I voted Harris and know people who didn't because of Gaza. Their votes didn't really matter because of where they lived. If the race was going to be close in their areas they would have voted. It sure is interesting how people understand the concept of strategic voting when it benefits their perspective. Withholding votes in safe districts to signal disapproval with the candidate or party is one of the most basic milquetoast things someone can do.
All of this hubbub and they didn't even affect the election outcome per basically every article that has come out since. Had she fully endorsed a more populist approach I'm sure she would've beat the couch for enough people to tip her over the edge, but instead her campaign kept pretending like everyone wanted a right leaning centrist incapable of any stance not endorsed by their handlers. Americans writ large don't care enough about Americans to do anything substantial, they certainly don't care about Gaza more than voting for a candidate they thought would materially improve their lives. I've been trying to explain for over a year and people just don't like that answer. Admittedly, I too would prefer to live in a world where the issue is that too many people cared about a genocide and not that America just happens to be full of stupid fascistic bigots.
I really hate celebrity culture and I'm not into sports so I am extremely biased, but I don't think they "should be celebrated". I'm not looking for athletes to be social leaders or for everyone to have an opinion on every little political thing, but they are choosing to represent the US on an international stage, so they need to either strand by that and admit they support a fascist regime, or give some nominal pushback to signal that though they are from here they don't support what's happening.
If I stop patronizing local places for having Trump signs in the window, then I certainly am not going to celebrate these guys, especially when the women's team set a fine example and they chose not to have solidarity with them. People are welcome to do whatever they want, but I'm not going to celebrate Roman Polanski just because he won some awards and I'm not going to celebrate these guys. Accepting this behavior is part of the problem in my opinion, and as long as we're willing to excuse them because "they're HOCKEY players", then there will never be equality.
If the women can take it the men should too. Anyone deciding to go along to get along at this point is pro-Trump regardless of what they say. Trump is not their parent and these are adult who chose to be put in this position. If they want to "represent their country" and they won't push back when their country is fascist then they are representing fascism.
Really wish people would get off twitter, but if this tweet from the link is accurate then I think it explains a bit:
I don’t think this is the correct read of the chart, the NYT literally stopped offering a News-only subscription for new customers — the News product is the tentpole feature of all the bundles.
I know someone who seriously considered moving to Florida recently with a young baby and more on the way. I was beside myself trying to find reasons they shouldn't move. I was so concerned for those kids but the weather. How do you compete with that? Nowhere is really safe in this country, even less so now, but Florida?! If you don't want your kids there are better options than moving to Florida and crossing your fingers.
I think it's important to acknowledge that USAID was not a perfect organization. I have said as much before. Countries are often not doing that kind of thing for purely altruistic reasons, but evidence suggests that people were getting food and healthcare through them that they otherwise would not have received. You can argue the benefits of supplying that vs upskilling or local investing, but people are now lacking something they used to be able to count on USAID for. I think good could have come from something like that, and there just isn't the political will to remake that where possibly it could be used for good. I understand people may feel like reform is impossible, but I think a lot of USAID work was doing something for people that we owe something to. More and better should have been done, but I don't think dismantling it the way they did helped as much as it hurt.
It's a good thing we got rid of USAID. How else would be able to scrounge up the spare money needed? We're already going without healthcare and education, often without food and housing. So glad we still had some fat to trim and are able to support this. I'd hate for that money to be going to food and medical aid for countries we exploited or god forbid, go to help people actually in America.
Thanks for posting this. Really interesting article and good, representative choice of excerpts. I feel like this is a topic people often speak past each other on and I think he really does a great job of avoiding that.
Someone who is good at the economy please help me budget this. My wallet is drying
It's unbelievable to me that R voters do not see how wasteful petty garbage like this is. They were "worried" about life saving medical aid sent to other countries, but apparently setting up Nazi style banners of their fuhrer is a great use of taxpayer money.
I don't want to write an in depth comment without receipts, but I swear I watched a breadtuber deep dive into how he put those women in horrible situations, and they also touched on his personal life. I cannot for the life of me find the video though, but the information I remember is pretty damning. If anyone knows what I'm referring to, please post a link. I'm not trying to dismiss this act if it's a genuine thing, but I would love to know I'm not hallucinating this video.