teaman2000

It's always useful when a study can quantify the obvious. But it is depressing.

1. Doing things like randomly firing the staff who were hired recently to address gaps in care is NOT the way to improve things. And it takes staff, time and money to make new processes.

2. The article points out ways, besides VA cuts, that veterans are being harmed. For instance, many of those government workers fired without cause are veterans, and the veterans' suicide hotline (already understaffed) is going to hemorrhage more staff when the edict against remote work goes into effect.

I am constantly amazed at how reputable news outlets like the New York Times misstate data from Facebook's CrowdTangle - usually in a way that overstates the spread of the questionable information. But Facebook seems to deliberately want to prevent outsiders from getting access to information that would help us judge the scope of the problem.

There are lots of roundabouts in the Boston area (where we call them rotaries). People encounter them regularly and STILL don't know how to use them. Although recently there have been great strides made in using lane markings to steer drivers through more effectively.

I guess the question to ask is: if you gave the kids a desk and a room of their own by itself, would academic performance improve? Or would academic performance improve more if you raised the parents out of poverty?

That didn't work for me, alas. But adding a random query parameter did: https://www.youtube.com/embed/?z&list=YOUR_PLAYLIST_ID

I know, the answer to the climate toll of eating meat is vegetarianism. But I like to see this more as a question of harm reduction - hundreds of millions of people will not give up meat tomorrow.

Ummm, in the article it says: "Each participant only rated one man, with and without a cat."

The top photo in the article is a posed photo. But the second one is one that was part of the study.