I get the impression that many in their 30s want third spaces, though like healthy food, they're too lazy to act. They would also be a better alternative for those in their 20s who go to college only for the social experience, and don't use their degree afterwards.
I doubt we can revert to past third spaces, but maybe the evolution of social media will create new in-person experiences. Like how GLP-1 helps people lose weight. Or the asocial people (who used to be pressured into socializing) may die off.
I learned even from my non-STEM classes: philosophy, international culture, debate, and more.
Maybe college is useful for most people, after all. But not the insane tuition (which doesn't seem justified), and students who don't show up and cheat because they only care about the degree: most people shouldn't attend college, like today, unless they enjoy learning or plan to use their education in some way. Then, professors could devote more time to those students, and those who wouldn't use their degrees wouldn't have debt.
Another problem with today's society is lack of third spaces. And another may be employees working and stressing more than necessary, because of inefficiency and toxicity from employers. If there were more third spaces, blue-collar employees worked for less hours, and there were more blue-collar employees in their 20s, they would be able to party and relax like college students.
Even today, if a high school graduate gets a vocational job that leaves time to hang out with their friends (who may be in college dorms and buildings that allow off-campus guests), their short term experience may be better: they don't need to worry about coursework off hours, and they have more disposable income (unless the college students are taking extra loans).
Although I think it ultimately depends on the person's interests. I know I'm much better at thinking than labor or service. If someone's genuinely passionate about a college field, or despises mindless work, they should get a degree, then maybe enter graduate school. But if someone only wants a social life and stable income, getting a degree they won't use is a waste, there are better ways for them to still enjoy their 20s.
I don't think most HR and managers (the ones doing hiring, not the CEO) are old. But I do suspect their jobs are mostly useless, many aren't good at them (but stay because their boss/CEO doesn't know better), and companies could get by with much less of them and possibly AI.
I don't necessarily care if they're (not) fired, and I have sympathy for them. But it would certainly be better for employees if companies simplified long interview processes and replaced them with (paid) probation, and I think it would be better for employers (since probation is a better metric, and many talented employees will simply abandon convoluted hiring process).
Brainwavez
1mo ago
I'd like to see more young politicians. Even if most boomers keep electing boomers, the other generations combined could elect a young millennial or even Gen Z.
Young politicians have less worldly experience and more impulsiveness, but more familiarity with recent worldly changes. In these times, which are changing faster than previous decades, this is important. Young politicians would also be more popular among young people, who (like the graduates mentioned above) need optimism and relatable leaders. And there would still be old politicians to mitigate their deficiencies.
I suspect a big reason tech isn't being regulated well, isn't corruption (although that's also a reason), but because old people don't understand its effects.
I'm hearing the media (always cynical outrage) is worse than reality, but it's still bad.
Most graphs I've seen look like this (Software Development Job Postings on Indeed in the United States): a bump rising 2020-2022 falling 2022-2024, with current levels around 2020 levels, not rising nor falling. The problem is, there are many more computer science graduates than in 2020. AI probably hasn't diluted the job market (at least yet), but the massive rise in computer science graduates has.
There's also a separate issue: hiring is broken, so talented applicants can't get jobs even though there's demand for them. AI makes formerly common benchmarks (like LeetCode) easy to cheat, but even before AI, employers didn't know how to evaluate candidates: ironically, they don't seem to understand what the job they're hiring for actually requires, because many resume screens and interviews have completely unnecessary requirements.
Or the problem may not be lack of employment, but tech companies becoming bureaucratic nightmares which don't make anything fun or beneficial to society, while evaluating employees on stupid criteria (like how much AI tokens they use) and constantly threatening layoffs. Ludicity is a blogger with stories like "I Accidentally Saved Half A Million Dollars"; although his experience is only from 2023-2024, and maybe unusual, because he had no problem getting hired.
Brainwavez
1mo ago
If college is replaced by unpaid internships, those. The internships would be easy to get, and incompetent employees would be fired early and not recommended, so their resume would only grant more unpaid internships.
Unpaid internships have the potential to teach more relevant skills cheaper. Ideally, they’re mutual: the employer gets a free worker, the employee learns exactly what they’ll need for a paid career.
Although they have the alternate potential to be worse than college: an employer may require busywork that would be useless in a real career, “grade” students unfairly (threaten to fire and give negative recommendation based on arbitrary criteria), and probably won’t provide the social aspect of college (which may shift out of college into third spaces if everyone's doing internships, but may remain or disappear, especially if employees are being overworked).
For this reason, I think internships should be advertised and accredited by some agency, like colleges are. Or, students should still attend college, but coursework should be almost entirely replaced with internships. The idea of an internship comes from today’s colleges’ internship programs: every one I’m aware of is highly praised, so much that I’ve frequently heard applicants choose colleges mainly for their internship opportunities.
The kids aren't alright (continued)
This college graduation season, many commencement speakers are extolling AI, then getting boo'd by the students. Most notably Eric Shmidt, in University of Arizona, after telling students to "deal with it"; also less recognized speakers in smaller universities (like MTSU and UCF).
In contrast, Steve Wozniak told students they "all have AI — actual intelligence" to applause.
This reflects multiple overlapping problems:
- Age gap: Partly because of TFR collapse, old people have more resources, and are catered to more by politicians (who also are usually old themselves)
- The graduates are Gen Z, the speakers are old (Eric Shmidt is a baby boomer)
- Wealth gap: The white-collar job market (at least certain fields, like tech and art) is struggling, while top white-collar employing businesses are doing fine
- The graduates are white-collar employees, the speakers are CEOs
- AI favorability gap: AI has the potential to make the wealth gap worse and college more useless, to an extent it's already doing so
- The graduates are against AI (believing it's contributing to their problems), the speakers are in favor
- Collapsing college
- College tuition has increased to absurd levels
- College has become easier, evidenced by grade inflation and more attendees
- College has become less personal, because there are more attendees
- AI makes cheating much easier
- College has become less helpful towards getting a better job, because there are more attendees, and grade inflation & cheating have caused employers to less value accreditations and GPA
Tech students are particularly affected: many were told that if they went to college, they'd be practically guaranteed an easy, high-paying job, like their older peers; but today they graduate to a bad job market. Meanwhile, the companies they planned to join are posting record profits. AI has invalidated some of their learned skills, and moreover, has the potential to worsen the job market and wealth gap.
Although it's not just tech. Liberal arts students have worse job prospects (although some of theirs were never good), and seem to be more against AI. Law and accounting are apparently being impacted, because AI automates their entry-level jobs.
In summary, the speakers have a completely different perspective due to their age, AI outlook, and wealth; and students aren't happy to see their college which has failed them do it one last time, by appointing an out-of-touch speaker (or using AI to flub announcing their names).
Where to go from here?
Undergraduate education is deeply flawed. I think (not an uncommon position): students should only go to college if for graduate education (which is also flawed but for different reasons, and has purpose until ASI or a suitable alternative). Otherwise, they can learn degree skills in high school or on-the-job training: probably a free unpaid internship, which (as long as it demands real skills, not cheap labor) would be an improvement over paying for college; or pursue a trade. But first, employers must no longer prioritize (let alone require) college degrees; I believe this is happening in some fields, but slowly. In the meantime, more students should and will attend cheap online degree mills, possibly alongside an internship (to graduate with job experience and a better resume).
As for AI...I don't really know. It has some great use-cases, and the potential to strictly improve standards of living (why do something that AI can automate?); it and/or another revolutionary advancement is probably necessary to mitigate climate change and TFR collapse. But it also causes some problems, and has the potential to create global catastrophe. Regardless, I don't expect I or the graduates can influence its evolution or effects. For those reasons, I'm not really optimistic or pessimistic about it. At least I'm aware enough not to extol it to college graduates.
If
-
The ticket is legitimate
-
The NGOs suing can themselves be sued for frivolity
The cop has nothing to fear. Although I can imagine a lawsuit for a frivolous lawsuit for a frivolous lawsuit…getting out of hand.
I believe that generally, the law should, only and be heavily incentivized to, be applied in obvious cases. In ambiguity, the justice system does nothing, except ensures the defendant has a way to prevent or at least record future infractions.
For example:
-
If someone runs over the speed limit, they get fined. If someone is wrongly fined and has their own evidence, they appeal, and get repaid with extra. If someone is wrongly fined but has no evidence, better luck next time: they can start recording their speed, so if they’re caught again they’ll have evidence to reverse both cases.
- Except in the third scenario, precedent itself is evidence: if cops in an area are repeatedly caught issuing wrongful fines, their future contested fines will be presumed invalid unless they provide evidence.
-
If someone has a legitimate claim, they sue. If someone is clearly illegitimately sued, they counter-sue. If someone is illegitimately sued but can’t prove obviousness, both parties waste their time.
- Again, precedent: if someone keeps filing failed or ambiguous lawsuits, their ambiguous future lawsuits in that category will be deemed frivolous. If someone keeps defending against failed or ambiguous lawsuits, future ambiguous lawsuits in that category will be deemed frivolous (in their favor).
-
Rulings can be appealed a fixed number of times, possibly zero. The appeals themselves will waste everyone’s time, unless the defendant can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the prior ruling was clearly wrong (not just ambiguous), or the plaintiff can prove the defendant’s new argument is frivolous (or clearly the same as their old argument).
My basic reasoning is: the more the law is enforced by letter, the more it can be sidestepped (broken in spirit). The more it’s enforced by spirit, the more susceptible it is to corruption, and corruption in the law is more dangerous than corruption in other institutions. If the law is only enforced in obvious cases, both issues are reduced: the letter is too unambiguous to sidestep, corrupting the spirit would be too obvious. Meanwhile, other institutions with softer enforcement can counter non-obvious infractions, either by making them obvious to the law, or using ambiguity to their advantage. The law (by itself) doesn’t prevent crime, so at least some of these other institutions are necessary anyways.
I forget how weakly-qualified immunity is justified.
I understand why state officials should have more ability to use violence than citizens, including ability to make reasonable mistakes (i.e. immunity). But there should be a limit for egregious (either intentional or unacceptably incompetent) mistakes. Why is the limit so high?
We have too much petty crime, yet qualified immunity seems to boost it, by shielding cops from punishment for not handling it. I also have the impression that there are many regions where most people don’t respect their cops. In these ways, reducing qualified immunity would increase enforcement, and (by making cops more respected by locals) improve job conditions and morale.
The college system desperately needs reform, but capping As is a bad solution which can make it even worse.
I took a class where As were capped via a downward curve. If you knew the material, but made a few careless mistakes or struggled early in the semester, you’d end with a bad grade.
Another class, the material was easy, but the exams were difficult in ways that would never matter in the real world, like convoluted phrasing.
In both cases, giving everyone As would’ve better reflected their competence, and not caused unnecessary stress.
See also: the UK trying to eliminate juries ("in cases where a convicted defendant would be imprisoned for up to three years").
I'm generally in favor of the jury. It's "the worst system except for all others that have been tried": other than a few high-profile cases (like OJ Simpson), it seems most juries reach reasonable conclusions. A jury is harder to corrupt than a judge, since it's 12 people who are supposed to be ordinary citizens. They tend more lenient (and if the defendant is clearly innocent and the jury convicts them anyways, the judge can and will vacate their ruling), but I'm generally against convicting someone unless they're clearly guilty. Less efficiency isn't a big issue, because most trials are avoided via plea bargain or dropped prosecution.
I also think civil cases against corporations should only need a certain ratio of jurors, because a wrongful conviction is less severe. Criminal cases should be nearly or totally unanimous.
My understanding is that the judge is very powerful in the courtroom: if jurors are bickering or not acting serious, the judge can sanction or replace them, or order a retrial with an entirely new jury. For example, here the judge should've ordered "no costumes".
EDIT after actually reading the article:
In summary, the focused (costume incident) case is about hospitals suing opioid pharmacies. Two jurors wanted to acquit the pharmacies based on the law, the remaining six wanted to convict presumably based on morals. The verdict needed to be unanimous, but apparently the case can be retried (because the parties plan to do so).
Personally, I really wouldn't care either way how this case resolved. In a criminal case that requires unanimity, if jurors are deadlocked between law and feelings, the defendant can only be acquitted, which I generally support whether law or feeling are on their side. A civil case sometimes (in some jurisdictions) doesn't require unanimity.
I think the main issues here are jurors harassing others, violating court rules (using AI), and complaining about other jurors making them feel unsafe. The judge can and should handle these; it seems like they mostly did, and some jurors are just upset that the case didn't end how they wanted.
Brainwavez
1mo ago
Perfect Tides and its sequel.
If you don't at least think the protagonist is well-written, who (from some other media) would you consider a well-written character?
Restating and extending this:
In theory I have no qualms with AI art, in practice I’ve yet to see a (knowingly) AI-assisted work I consider decent.
I suspect because (at least to me) originality and relatability (i.e. taste) are important in art; language and diffusion models especially lack both, and they lack the (predictable, easy) control necessary for the artist to infuse theirs.
An artist with taste can make incredible art in B&W, pixel, low-poly, etc. The medium is less important, and those being easy mediums to control, allow the artist to express themselves more accurately.
I think, like how AI for code is another abstraction, AI for art is another medium. Some people disagree, partly because today’s AI is a poor abstraction; likewise, today’s AI is a poor medium, because of the aforementioned lack of control.
Brainwavez
1mo ago
I’m sure a big draw towards vaporware is nostalgia for the old Internet.
I went to a public school, and my experience sounds similar.
Everyone went to the same campus.
We had a separate elementary and middle/high school.
Discipline was uniformly strict
Discipline existed, including suspension and expulsion, but wasn't especially strict. Students acted out, but I never saw anything compared to horror stories I hear today.
Flip side of that, no hallpasses, and in high school you didn't even need to ask permission to go to the bathroom, because if you abused the privilege you got in trouble.
There were honors and regulars classes for every core class except religious ed, with real tracking for math in the secondary grades.
We had honors classes, and math branched into calculus, statistics, and discrete.
Starting around 10th grade finals declined in importance, I think when I graduated there was one final exam(Latin) and that's it, we had essays and projects and whatnot for everything else.
Most classes had finals, but they were a small fraction of the overall grade. Some finals were multi-week projects.
Very importantly, your parents could not get you moved to a more rigorous/prestigious class, although sometimes teachers could, and you could transfer credits in from community college if you wanted.
Electives existed and were unsegregated, although a few of them had pre-reqs which kept it to kids in honors in related classes.
I think it was OK, but I wish there was less busywork, higher-level advanced classes, and more computer classes.
An idea from the old thread: instead of testing students and separating them into different schools, each student should learn at their own rate in the same school, via a vast universal online curriculum.
Additionally, instead of one final exam, there should be many interspersed exams. To save proctoring resources, each student could have a random subset of their exams strictly proctored, unknown before exam day.
Students would graduate either at a certain age or after passing certain lessons, whichever comes first. Then they could optionally keep taking lessons and exams (at home online, or by paying to enroll in an adult school). Enough progress in a specific subject would award them a Master’s degree.
Problems? I think it would still be unfair, stressful, unreliable, etc., but better than the current system. Students who don’t have access to coaches would be less disadvantaged, because the online curriculum would cover practically every subject and be designed by the best teachers. With many exams, students may be less stressed and hampered by exam-day sickness, since one bad exam grade is negligible. With many exams and random proctoring, cheating would be harder, even if proctoring was less strict to compensate for frequency.
Maybe they can with online resources like Khan Academy. They’ve gotten much better very recently (the latest improvement being one-on-one LLM tutors), so schools haven’t yet adapted.
Then, teachers only must ensure students follow the rules and answer rare questions, strictly less than they do now.
Substitute “merit” with “ability”.
It’s arguably unfair, but I can’t imagine a solid argument that it’s unjust that doesn’t also justify Harrison Bergeron.
I’m also sure some students would be over and under placed due to conscious and subconscious bias (because not all assignments can be graded on objective criteria, and everybody is biased), which is one reason I leave open the opportunity for a student to manually enroll in a higher class.
I am skeptical of the whole "encouraging children's natural interests instead of formal education" part
The students would still be required to take core subjects, just at different speeds. Although I also think there should be more electives, by having one teacher administering multiple (with the help of online resources).
At the end of the day, this system will benefit the best students the most, and it seems likely that the students would form cliques based on whether they are in the good or the bad class.
Sure, although I imagine there will be some exceptions. Partly because the less academic students may be more “cool”.
The best students are usually from good socioeconomic backgrounds, so this will easily be spun as discrimination and enforcement of the existing social order. Limiting social mobility, putting disadvantaged groups further behind, etc.
Unfortunately yes, even though it’s supposed to be exclusively based on merit.
However, if a non-disruptive student or their parent really wants to be in a class above their level, I think it should happen. If they struggle, some of their assignments should be replaced with those from their actual level and between, to try to prevent them from falling behind, but if they continue to insist they can stay. That may slightly alleviate complaints, because the students in the lower sections are there partly by choice (albeit partly by encouraged default).
I also support allocating extra resources to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, especially those in upper-level classes.
Brainwavez
1mo ago
How about a Montessori-like system, where students progress through classes at their own speed (instead of age)? They would still interact with similarly-aged students in social activities like meals, except disruptive students who are bothering others would be a separate group (who would be assigned some form of therapy).
Brainwavez
1mo ago
Newcomb originally specified that Omega would leave Box B empty in the case that you tried to decide by flipping a coin; since this violates algorithm-independence, we can alternatively suppose that Omega can predict coinflips.
You’re right, I misunderstood the problem.
Why do they do that?
Why do people gamble?
Alternatively, they also misunderstand the problem. I wonder if the “practice run” method of predicting their behavior would change their mind.
Note that sometimes the "regulation" isn't from the government, but a parent organization.
For example, sometimes managers assign employees useless tasks to take credit for managing a higher number of employees, since that's the metric they get promoted on. Or to spend their yearly budget so next year's isn't reduced. Or because one of their employees is their boss's incompetent grandson.
When companies become large enough, they become pseudo-governments. A large, poorly-managed organization creates bullshit, regardless of whether it’s public or private.
I'd like more young politicians and public figures who are better role models.
I think they're not good, but better than the average establishment Democrat.
More options
Context Copy link