You think a PhD automatically makes someone a better teacher than a school teacher? Shows quite an elitism that assumes knowledge and scholarly ability is the mark of a good teacher. From someone who actually taught in schools, scholarship matters almost zero, classroom management and emotional intelligence are far more important in a school teacher.
And giving away the money? You’d lose all amenities of a school, the building, its land, the social benefits of school interactions, etc. Most importantly, you lose classroom management of a teacher, and the kids lose out big time.
A PhD tutor stood in front of determinedly mischevious children, most couldn’t last two weeks.
It could certainly be an option for some people. You could have navy seals for the kids who want to master outdoors, music themed experts etc. not one size fits all, but unlimited options.
There never was rampant inflation (in the sense of the term of expanding money supply). It was all driven by the increased prices supply shock driven "inflation". The solution to high prices ("inflation") is high prices, not increased interest rates.
“To be fair”, ok provide data. Do you have evidence that they consistently changed metrics to keep inflation on target? I only know of one change in the recent years and I don’t know if that even went through.
Probably not, economists generally stay in school straight to becoming professors or they’ll go into finance right after school.
That said I don’t think entry level illustration jobs can be around if software can do their job better than they do. Just like we don’t have a lot of calculators anymore, technological replacement is bound to occur in society, AI or not.
Sorry, I don’t follow? Why did it need to hide its activities to run analytics? What statistical analytical purpose is served by wiping logs and removing logging?
Since we’re spitballing, Why not try giving them the opposite of benefit of doubt, as well? Something like, the administration is clearly compromised by Russia and hired a bunch of low status hackers, and we’re seeing massive bombs being dropped all over our cybersecurity defenses?
How can you have been neutral on Trump until just now and then wrote that? This both-sides-ism looks a bit ludicrous. Neither side is perfect but one is a propagandistic cult and the other is a reasonable status quo party. One wants to throw hand grenades into every room of the government out of spite and out of desire to enrich and empower the billionaire class. And you’re now having this huge intellectual reckoning? Where were you the last 9 years of Trump?
I for one think better late than never. There's no shame in falling for a movement this big, if you eventually realize it's built on a mountain of lies and decide to take a step away from it.
Trump is very effective at selling people their grievances; at identifying problems, "with the right emotional tone", and so on. Obviously, he's completely unable to solve any of them -- and mostly lacks the interest in doing so.
Since I sympathised with the people who sympathised with him, I did not regard him as an inherently "evil" -- which seemed to be the left's take. And it's a pretty dangerous one. Because when people identify with trump, if you call him evil, so to them. And the left's habit of just opposing whatever he says renders their side seemingly at least as callous as him: which is why so many polls believe trump understands their problems better than the other side.
I think it's more accurate to say trump is a complex individual who could, with the right social environment, express quite different politics. What I hadn't anticipated is that his social environment has become so radicalised, professionalised, and totalitarian. (As someone else put it: the last trump was "Jared's" and this one is Don Jr's. Trump, I think, can be both. That's over now.)
In any case, I think it's a moot point. I was wrong. This latent rage of the right against their cultural marginalisation is now a smokescreen for the totalising of the presidency. It's a real problem.
>Trump is very effective at selling people their grievances; at identifying problems
What are some of the problems he identified? Because his speeches just seem to tap into vague insecurities and the general claim things were better in the past
> How can you have been neutral on Trump until just now and then wrote that? This both-sides-ism looks a bit ludicrous.
Devil's advocate, I think it's easy if you don't directly feel impact from his policies. I've been losing my marbles about Trump at family dinners for a while, but for a chunk of my family he's a check against "radical" liberalism (read: gender ideology, spending money on things that don't serve everyday americans) and a path to lower tax bills.
Similarly, I think it's easy (from a conservative perspective) to dismiss all the seemingly emotional reactions to something Your Guy is saying because that's just politics; that's the expected behavior of politicians. It's not a problem if Your Guy is caught in a lie because they all do it.
I'm straw-manning a bit, but I'm just trying to sketch anecdotes of how I've seen otherwise rational, empathetic, intelligent people routinely offer (to me) unreasonably calm takes on Trump's activities and behavior.
Michelson and his experiments on the aether not existing were enormously influential to theoretical physics. “No notion” is incorrect, they had numerous home grown talents in physics, on top of the huge influx of talent from 1930s immigration of European scientists.
The USA being a beacon of hope and enlightenment in those days stands in stark contrast to the isolationist, anti-intellectual, anti-research, and frankly xenophobic policies pursued by the current admin, courts, and congress.
It’s possible parent comment is referring to factually proven issues, such as climate change, that the right has its own set of propagandistic facts for.
I’d say the any group of people has areas of less factitious basis for their beliefs. But, We all should want to employ truthful factual real, non-propagandistic ideas, eh? Is this controversial?
If we don’t have ground truth, real facts, what can we base anything off of? Our policies will fail, our dollars will be wasted, and division will grow.
One danger with "factually proven issues" is cherry-picking facts or otherwise taking them from context. For example, there might be stats on which a president sucked for most of his term, but in the last few months those stats were decent (or vice versa); and then supporters of the president might shout those last few months' stats from the rooftops, and then do polls that show that supporters know but opponents don't know about those last few months' stats, and gleefully report, "Gosh, well, we're trying to reason with our opponents, but unfortunately they're just so ignorant, what can we do..."
Another danger is people playing with definitions. A third is people claiming things to be "facts" based on cherry-picked studies (and possibly some dubious interpretations thereof).
Progress can be made, but I think it requires a sophisticated approach. Paying attention to all the above dimensions, and probably to the motives of the people involved.
I agree with your approach but, as a generally extremely left leaning individual myself, comments solely using "the right" (or any individual group) as the example make it hard to assign to this kind of thought process alone.
Some regular self doubt "what I think are ground truth facts may need to be requisitioned and revalidated and that isn't just true for one specific group to consider" is a core requirement of trying to hold a fact based viewpoint, just as important as any other part of such an approach.
reply