domain:acoup.blog
HereAndGone
3d ago
I swear, if it wasn't for my late-Victorian educated granny teaching me how to do long division the old-fashioned way, I'd never have learned the way it was taught in school.
The Tom Lehrer (God rest the man) song is funny but acute if you're old enough to have gone through the process when schools were switching from the old way to the new way, and teachers weren't adequately trained yet in the new way.
HereAndGone
3d ago
See, that's the kind of 'innate understanding from first principles' that my brain just does not have for numbers. I learned my times tables and I'd be lost without them.
I look at that and go "but why pick 2? Why not multiply the 7 by 3 and divide the 8 by 4 if you're doing it that way?" Not getting the underlying patterns means I'm blind as to why "this number rather than that number, this of course is the quadrant of the circle for cos" etc. It's like trying to explain to someone tone-deaf that of course this note from hitting this key on the piano is not the same as this note hitting that key. (I'm bad at that as well, I love music but in music classes at school when we had to identify 'what note was that?' I bombed).
Throwaway05
3d ago
There's also concern around organ donation. I've seen some reports online about adopting new guidelines around brain death so that (to put it crudely) they can start getting the organs as fresh as possible.
If you want to read more about this some discussion is here: https://old.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/1mf2rv4/donor_organs_are_too_rare_we_need_a_new/
Gaashk
3d ago
I haven't heard about the multiple intelligences lately. It's been a lot of Science of Reading, High Quality Instructional Materials (apparently this has a more specific meaning than I had initially assumed), uninterrupted Tier 1 (basic curriculum) minutes in ELA and Math, and interventionists for elementary schoolers, including adding Math Lab, STEM, and SEL (social emotional learning) to the elementary specials rotation.
I have a relative who's starting a licensure program this year, so perhaps I'll find out what the current educational zeitgeist is.
DoctorMonarch
♬We're so happy that we live in 1800's Alabama 'cause it's sunny and there is no crime!♬
3d ago
the solar eclipse (the earliest manuscripts actually specify that it was a solar eclipse, rather than a darkening of the sky)
Please specify, which manuscripts of which texts?
We need a term for the set of things that people and movements push for in practice after all the social dynamics have been accounted for, as opposed to the things they want in principle. Revealed preferences is close, but it comes bundled with a theory of mind I reject. (Revealed preferences are not preferences.)
The only item on your list of goals that anybody would support in principle is separating kids from their parents, and only some would endorse that. But as a practical matter that movement ends up fighting for the whole list.
Well eating ice cream all day gets boring fast.
Eating ice cream as a self-reward after achieving something is better, now we're adding more complexity to the experience as a whole which is broadened beyond just ice cream. Songs are good but songs played at the right time in the film are better. The smile from someone you love is another example, it's more than just a smile because of that added background and context.
Likewise with video games. There's some value in Pong but the simplicity really limits it. You're doing the same thing again and again. If you were doing more and different things at a greater level of depth, without skinner box mechanics to trick the brain into coming back...
but it is that a life dedicated wholly to seeking pleasures is morally empty and contemptible
Wouldn't it be worse for an incompetent to be sticking his nose into a well-running machine earnestly trying to help yet only ever causing more problems? That activates my sense of aversion and cringe. In a world of strong and benign superintelligences, there will probably be nothing that a once-human can do to produce any kind of wealth or benefit. The astrophysics-specialist bots will do all the pondering of the stars at a massively superhuman level, the poetry bots will make poems better than any human or machine could, the engineer-bots will do all the engineering. They were purpose designed to be the absolute best at those things. One could imagine a loverengineer-bot too that spins up a perfect partner specifically for you. If you want a challenge and excitement, there's challenges, reverses, drama...
Having one's heritage be an ape generalist is probably a structural deficiency when it comes to 'ability to do things'.
Our idle pleasure seeker in a post-singularitarian reality would still be a great mind and capable of great feats by our standards but there'd be nothing to contribute. I just don't see how this can be a bad ending if everything you want is on tap, including all the best human experiences and post-human experiences that are even better.
There’s a lot of “we have the kids we have, not the kids we wish we had,” which is literally true but often used as an excuse.
That's a meaningful improvement over the training some friends of mine went through. Are they still teaching Gardner's multiple intelligences? And a few years ago, the district where I had gone to school adopted a commitment to achieving the same outcomes for all students regardless of their gifts or circumstances.
An acknowledgment that not all children are the same, and that their different gifts cannot be made to produce the same outcomes in the classroom, is actually a big deal.
Gaashk
3d ago
Elementary schools are a bit paranoid that someone out there might be a murderer, and might come to their school, but I haven't heard any I've been in suggest that their students themselves might become murderers, and should instead choose not to.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
3d ago
The research supports this - plenty of people manage without pain control or with more deliberate OTC medication usage.
Yes, if you have to suffer without pain control you can suffer. Having suffered this way, I do not wish to suffer in the future because some drug warrior thinks that opiods are a stain on the American soul. And I have seen some of their writings about how it's better that someone die horribly of acetaminophen toxicity rather than feed an opiod addiction, so I do not believe they have anyone's best interests at heart.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
3d ago
Why is homicide specifically worse when it's another person doing it?
Wow I really cocked that one up didn't I? Good catch.
Throwaway05
3d ago
Anecdotally I've had several significant injuries some of which have been managed with controlled substances and some of which have been managed with staggered dose ibuprofen and APAP, absent the "high" effect they are comparable (for me) when it comes to pain control. The research supports this - plenty of people manage without pain control or with more deliberate OTC medication usage.
Some amount of breakthrough pain or discomfort is normal and to an extent beneficial. Some research suggests that that the desire for total pain control and numbing is a somewhat American cultural specific desire and part of why we have addiction problems in this country.
Analgesia and addiction considerations aside, the medications have a number of problematic side effects that need to be considered. They do have their use though, and the people doing research in this area are aware of that.
Looking at a JAMA article and saying this clinical research is fabricated by non-clinician puritans is conspiratorial thinking, especially because the types of people have cultural sway for this kinda of thing at the moment are probably best categorized as dangerously pro-opioid - see: safe injection sites, methadone clinics, and pushing of Suboxone as the best solution to the problem.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
3d ago
This isn't actually an argument.
I didn't spell it out, but it should be obvious. If it is appropriate to ban a class of weapons because they are the weapons with which "[m]ost crimes and accidents happen", then a successful ban on that class will result in another class becoming the weapons with which most crimes and accidents happen and are therefore OK to ban. Thus such a principle leads to banning all weapons.
An assault weapons is a better defense than a pistol against any assailant you can see coming in advance-- and banning pistols makes it much easier to notice and be wary of criminals in the first place. Meanwhile, against an assailant that gets the jump on you, a gun-- and especially a small gun-- is worse that useless.
The second part is not empirically true. As for the rest, no weapon that you don't have with you is much good for defense, and walking around with an AR-15 all the time is simply inconvenient. And even if you have it, presumably slung, the difficulty of bringing it to bear means a pistol-armed (yeah, you banned them, but they didn't listen) or even knife-armed attacker can far more easily get the drop on you.
TitaniumButterfly
3d ago
Definitely not.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
3d ago
I’m not demanding a literalist view of the Bible, in fact it’s a naive reading. But I don’t really think it’s a problem to suggest that certain events were highlighted or downplayed by the author to be more memorable and appealing to the audience they were writing for. It’s a narrative story, and any story humans tell will highlight and downplay elements to make the story appealing or to make heroes look better or villains look worse. I don’t find the early church reading the Bible with the kind of literalism that modern evangelical fundamentalists use in interpreting the text. Not that they don’t believe the Bible and the stories in the Bible are true, but that they are not literalists insisting that everything described is absolutely meant to be literal.
GBRK
3d ago
We do that, gun misuse shifts to larger guns, someone draws a circle around some subclass (e.g. "assault weapons") and moves to ban that one, lather, rinse, repeat.
This isn't actually an argument. If you hold "people asking to ban guns" as an intrinsic evil, then your solution is to ban every gun before they do. If your actual intrinsic evil is "banning guns" then trading a ban on large weapons for a ban on small weapons is at worst net-neutral and at best (as I argued) allows for the better fulfilment of the socially useful properties of guns.
Also, most categories of misuse are linked to specific formats of weapons. A crew served weapon is great in a civil war, but not so great for robbing a convenience store. It's much easier to commit suicide with a pistol than with an M-1 Abrahms.
Personal defense is not.
An assault weapons is a better defense than a pistol against any assailant you can see coming in advance-- and banning pistols makes it much easier to notice and be wary of criminals in the first place. Meanwhile, against an assailant that gets the jump on you, a gun-- and especially a small gun-- is worse that useless. Trying to pull one out is all too likely to transform a robbery into a murder-- either because the assailant will notice your suspicious motion and shoot you, or because a smaller weapon is easier to take away from you. The deterrent property of having a big, obvious weapons would result in net better outcomes than using cowboy kung fu to quickfire your pistol straight through your pants.
In sum, banning small guns and legalizing big ones would both save lives AND provide a bigger deterrent against government overreach. It's the ideal compromise between 2A advocates and gun control crusaders. I'm not being facetious here, this is my actual position.
Jiro
3d ago
If keeping blacks from voting caused no harm to blacks, why did anyone even bother keeping them from voting?
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
3d ago
LOL, you just want to stop that guy when he starts talking about brain development of teenagers and say "SAT-M".
MaximumCuddles
The world-spirit texting on the toilet
3d ago
Did Kulak eat a ban? I must have missed that, I just thought he got really involved on X / Substack and drifted away.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
3d ago
600 people per year being deliberately killed
*Voluntarily killed
although if they want to DIY it that seems fine
How is a ~77 year old terminal cancer patient going to DIY suicide, and how is that better for literally anyone? Sucks for them to DIY it, sucks for them even more if they fuck up DIYing it and survive with a crippling injury, sucks if they just can't, and have to die of their terminal disease slowly, sucks for whoever has to find their DIY remains (likely, a family member).
this new category of homicide is totally cool and no problem.
It's not homicide, it's literally voluntary. The average age is 75 for track 2.
Further, given it's VOLUNTARY, it won't happen to you, so why are you so tilted other people are doing it?
I feel like you should convince me why terminal or near terminal old people shouldn't be able to go out peacefully and painlessly. I think everyone has a right to a dignified and painless end, justify why they should be stopped if they consent.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
3d ago
I'm going to pretend you're not being a bad faith ankle-biter here.
The only way back is by promising you will follow the rules and not continue breaking the rules. Under those circumstances, we will consider unbanning someone.
No one should consider this unreasonable.
The alternative is no forgiveness ever.
You can disingenuously characterize this as "Begging can save you from banning" but you know that is not remotely the same thing.
We've never rescinded a ban because someone begged (and once or twice someone has tried).
Also worth noting that as far as I can recall, no one has ever actually petitioned us to be unbanned other than the ones who pleaded for leniency as soon as it happened (and then flew into a rage when we said no). Quite a few people have complained that their banning was unwarranted, and a few times someone else has petitioned on behalf of a banned member, but this scenario in which someone genuinely asks us for amnesty (whether you call it "begging" or not) is to date entirely hypothetical.
Jiro
3d ago
Arguments about ‘abuse’ are unconvincing. If “the government” or “the powers that be” want to kill me, they can and they will.
The main problem isn't that someone in the government wants you dead. It's that incentives will lead to bad decisions that end up with you dead. Nobody has to specifically want you dead as a terminal goal (no pun intended) for incentives to have an effect.
thrownaway24e89172
Death is the inevitable and only true freedom
3d ago
It's only considered "cheating" when it is framed to make progressives look bad. It's considered a perfectly valid solution when framed as a solution for groups progressives hate.
Where is the evidence these people have fabricated studies in an attempt to slander the efficacy of opioids?
That's your claim right?
Otherwise you can find a minority population online saying whatever, but they need to have an impact on prescribing habits and the research you deny.
More options
Context Copy link