jessedhillon
Anyway, my comment was about base rates of harassment received by anyone saying anything critical of anyone else: they are high, no matter who you are and what you are saying. It's not right, but it's not limited to women.
As for avoiding war: sure, but how should we conduct things until utopia arrives?
As it is, the default posture of WP is to be software suitable for those who write things that very few people will read.
- "Most people with diabetes need at least 2 insulin shots a day. Some people need 3 or 4 shots for good blood sugar control." (https://www.aafp.org/afp/1999/0801/p649.html)
- "In November last year, Walmart launched the ReliOn Novolin 70-30 insulin pen. The cash price for a pack of five pens is $42.88, compared to $300 for the brand name option." (https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/verify-yes-walmart-do...)
So we're talking about $25 for 1-2 days of vital injections. Approx $4,500 - $9,100 annually.
Also, it's a pretty unconvincing comparison to pick a small population country to benchmark the US against.
Seriously?
Second, you can't talk about school funding unless you talk about both administrative bloat and teacher's unions. As long as teachers can keep voting themselves raises and escaping even the most basic levels of accountability for their results, money will not solve the public school crises. And administrative employment has grown by 75% over less than a decade -- 10x the growth in teacher employment during the same time. [1]
So sure, you solve the bloat and local control issues, there's plenty of money for instruction and classroom resources.
0: https://nintil.com/bloom-sigma/
1: https://www.educationnext.org/growth-administrative-staff-as...
These are needs that all previous generations fulfilled through their community, or by meeting strangers. But I have the feeling that (some subset of) current generations find that proposition unacceptably risky. And I guess the offense comes from the idea that we should all be inconvenienced for their sake, and also from how the idea "I can only make friends in a safe space" is presented here and just expected to be believed.
Not only that, you can search for a photo of a light bulb you know you took, but don't know when, but simply typing "light bulb".
I agree it's a trivial change. To me the underlying issue is that, were it some non-racial domain this issue occured in, most people would have no problem seeing the claim that something so petty and insignificant has actually caused deep injury to my identity for what it is: absurd and possibly deranged. It's only when it comes to race that well meaning people are content to accept such absurd positions, thereby infantilizing the complainant.
And my real issue is that when you do that, it has been my observation that it changes your assumptions about all of "us". So I resent the default assumption that I am weak or need coddling, which is an assumption that I see many of your persuasion holding. (Acknowledging that some assumptions were made on my part just now as well)
This is a matter of representation and inclusion, which are worthwhile goals that should matter to people in positions to make decisions.
Also, this is trivial and doesn't matter.
>Not Indian or Black. Almost certainly he reads as white to most people. The blue hair and yellow skin was not meant to signify the characters place outside of race, it was a stylistic consequence of them not having hairlines
No, you miss the point. It's a creatively liberal work, and viewing it through a racial lens is
1. a choice of the viewer
2. provides a flawed and inconsistent mapping back to human race
3. pathological
The fact that you engage the question and believe there is a sincere answer is the evidence of pathology, IMO. It shows a commitment to read race into everything, instead of acknowledging that blue-haired people don't exist, and so it's quite likely that the project of mapping a phylogeny back to homo sapiens is dubious.
What you're doing is exactly analogous to a hypothetical person claiming that the Simpsons was a pioneer in pro-ablism art and culture, because all characters have four fingers. It's pareidolia.
This and other experiences convinced me that learning the formal rules of a language is perhaps not the best way to approach learning. Especially not if your intention is to speak to locals, rather than say, become a TV news announcer. I think the most critical skill of language learning is to get the "muscle memory" of the language, the reflex of subconsciously mapping concepts to words in your internal lookup table. This skill is even precedes IMO listening comprehension: naturally, when you're listening to someone speak, you'll miss words. But if your mastery of the language is sufficient to allow you to quickly guess what you would have said in the gap if you were speaking, then the error is survivable. I find that this seems to be how the brain works when listening to speech in your native language.
To correlate with Dan Ariely's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" it's the fast mode that's needed, whereas as a grammatical approach tends to emphasize and develop slow mode skills. Sometimes you need to go slow before you go fast, but given that children jump I without knowing the rules, I don't think it's necessary for language. (I also think too much is made about the supposed inelasticity of the adult brain re languages) I hope/expect with AI, there is a really interesting possibility around the corner for learning language in a simulated immersion environment. The Google and Amazon translation APIs seem, on paper, to provide at least 50% of what that would take.