It’s entirely possible that creating a brain capable of controlling itself is more costly (in an evolutionary sense, measured by the number of generations needed to achieve this goal) than equipping a brain with the ability to check itself by communicating with others.
Nevertheless, some brains lack even that ability, gravitating instead toward echo chambers where everyone shares the same views, so no mutual checks are possible.
I see around 80% of videos on X (Twitter) to be from TikTok originally. Probably because TikTok allows you to save - and so to spread - videos you like but X doesn’t.
> teachers are overworked to squeeze out performance for the 90%, and cases like hers are the ones that fall through the cracks.
However, the opposite is true, at least in California. Special needs students receive exceptional attention, often double that given to others. Each has a tailored written plan, unique to their needs, along with a detailed report reviewed by a team of specialists at the end of every trimester, significantly adding to the workload.
Meanwhile, exceptionally bright students receive no extra focus whatsoever.
The plans you are referring to (which from the fairly loose description could be either IEPs or 504s) are a matter of conpliance with federal law, specifically (for IEPs) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 and (for 504s) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, not something particular to California. And plenty of students who have either are, in fact, exceptionally bright, because both have standards that are not simply the absence of brightness.
I simply clarified the current state of affairs without saying a single negative word about it. Still, you rushed to defend it. It appears (just my guess) that you recognize flaws in the situation and feel compelled to justify it to yourself, don’t you?
As an engineer, I see both the advantages and drawbacks in what I described. The benefit is greater comfort and improved socialization for those who need it. The downside—and perhaps a critical one—is that a country neglecting its brightest students with no state support risks falling behind globally. That might not matter if we had no international rivals. But do we truly lack them?
> I simply clarified the current state of affairs without saying a single negative word about it.
It's awfully grandiose to present your experiences as a parent as the "current state of affairs" and a summary of all of California's approach to school psychology.
> Still, you rushed to defend it. It appears (just my guess) that you recognize flaws in the situation and feel compelled to justify it to yourself, don’t you?
I haven't defended it - I stated that the worldview you described makes me sad, and that I feel bad for the faculty and staff (treading water in this system that I agree is broken!) that I fear you are making it worse for. Do you psychoanalyze them with extreme confidence, also?
> As an engineer,
This was already very clear.
> that a country neglecting its brightest students
Ah - you've conveniently moved the goalposts: until now you were talking about teachers not providing "extra focus" or "exceptional" attention to the "exceptionally bright" students, and now it's "neglect." But the assertion here is that the bright students are still receiving the _required_ amount of attention, but someone else is receiving "extra," which is neglect (somehow). We're back at zero-sumness! This is what bums me out!
> That might not matter if we had no international rivals. But do we truly lack them?
what are you even talking about man how did you get here
Nice myth. Food wasn't quite provided for free. You did not get quite even basic rations enough to survive even if you were able to get them, further, due to mass exodus from farming to city, buildings were built there, and you had to wait a really long time, sometimes forever, to get a living space by lot.
Similar with a car - it all operated under severe scarcity.
All countries involved, even East Germany, had these problems.
Workers got either in priority to farmers and further others. Except politicians and connected people got theirs first beyond workers.
And some were able to buy it ahead of the queue.
The magical development in the West was driven by really heavy handed subsidies industrial development on already richer area, which USSR just could not afford, and especially not after funding the high military spending.
That notwithstanding some completely broken experiments done in large scale like attempts to farm the steppes in the middle of nowhere, a lot of which was funded by export from the few basket countries which would have otherwise had enough food.
And after a relatively short while, the industrialization effort stalled, a variety of farming related problems appeared due to both mismanagement, bad weather and plagues, countries involved got indebted on bad terms...
I didn't vote but I guess the downvotes are because it calls the parent claim a "myth" and then goes on to agree with it.
The scarcity that made food and housing not free in practice is why monetization (capitalism) ended up being better, which I assume was MikePlacid's point.
Capitalism has problems for sure, but it eliminates scarcity more efficiently than any other system we have tried so far.
Capitalism may share the abundance unevenly, but it still creates it in the first place, which is key.
Oh, the shipping! Now, from the customer’s point of view.
My youngest worked in a furniture chain over the summer. And they got sent a big, heavy furniture set from the central warehouse, which the store actually didn't want. So, they sent it back. The problem was that the system didn't allow them to say: please, don't send this again. And the non-natural intelligence at the central base decided to send this set again. When my youngest started working - they were loading this set back for the seventh time.
Why 'loading'? Because no one could find a way in the program to send this ill-fated set back on the same truck that brought it. No one, except my youngest, that is. He managed to find the combination of keys and checkboxes that allowed them not to unload the unwanted set and ship it back on the same truck - and he immediately got a raise.
I suspect the set is still traveling. But now they only load-unload it at the central warehouse.
Funnily enough, a bit of snark can help from time to time.
For anyone browsing the thread archive in the future: you can have that quip in your back pocket and use it verbally when having to discuss the bingo sheet results with someone competent. It's a good bit of extra material, but it can not[ß] be your sole reason. The term you do want to remember is "additional benefit".
The reasons you actually write down boil down to four things. High-level technical overview of your chosen solution. Threat model. Outcomes. And compensating controls. (As cringy as that sounds.)
If you can demonstrate that you UNDERSTAND the underlying problem, and consider each bingo sheet entry an attempt at tackling a symptom, you will be on firmer ground. Focusing on threat model and the desired outcomes helps to answer the question, "what exactly are you trying to protect yourself from, and why?"
ß: I face off with auditors and non-technical security people all the time. I used to face off with regulators in the past. In my experience, both groups respond to outcome-based risk modeling. But you have to be deeply technical to be able to dissect and explain their own questions back to them in terms that map to reality and the underlying technical details.
When we presented our pediatrician with our third child who could urinate in a sink on verbal command at just six months old, she remarked, "We should write an article for a medical journal!" We explained that such an article would never get published because it's not new information; most of Europe begins potty-training at around six months. Delaying this valuable skill until the age of 3-4 years is an enormous waste of resources - but still the whole country was insisting on doing it, don’t know about now.
> most of Europe begins potty-training at around six months
Not sure how this relates to the article, but this is news to me (European). We slowly began potty training somewhere between 1 and 2 years. I have never heard of anyone doing potty training at six months. Babies are just barely able to sit upright at that age.
> most of Europe begins potty-training at around six months
Where did you hear that? Admittedly here in the UK we've been doing our level best to extricate ourselves from the continent, but I've only ever heard of one mum even thinking about it before 18 months. Ours is just over a year and we haven't thought about it at all yet, same with our ante-natal group and friends with slightly older babies.
In English this is called "elimination communication" or EC. The parent subconsciously figures out when the baby needs to go based on schedule, observation of milk/water intake, and subtle behavioral cues (facial expression change, posture, etc).
It's a system that works quite well if the baby is exclusively cared for by a stay-at-home parent or a long-term nanny (and no other babies or toddlers in the house to distract the parent/nanny). But try to leave the baby with a new sitter or at a daycare - they have no idea what your baby's cues are and cannot be bothered to learn them; so back in diapers the baby goes.
This sounds different to potty-training, which is where the child knows that they need to wee or poo and tells you or goes straight to the potty to do it. "Abhalten" sounds like the parent training to know rather than the child.
> most of Europe begins potty-training at around six months.
Hailing from Poland; first I hear of this. I know of total of two people who said something like this before - one person is saying a lot of other borderline insane things about parenting, and the other has a business selling webinars around the idea of potty-training kids less than a year old.
>We explained that such an article would never get published because it's not new information; most of Europe begins potty-training at around six months.
Funny. I am European and we have this myth about Asia.
