BraveSirZaphod avatar

BraveSirZaphod

@BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

Israel has won simultaneous wars with all of its neighbors, multiple times.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

I would really love to see a study that distinguished between smoking vs edibles. The question I think people most want to know is if cannibinoids like THC are siginificantly dangerous. Chronically inhaling literally any kind of smoke is very bad for you, even if it's completely psychologically inactive.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

The consequence is that he is not a total simp for Trump the way most of the rest of the party is. Aid to Ukraine has been a very large division, to name one example.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

My point isn't that he's a good guy. I'm saying that he's not Tom Cotton, and if you don't think that's a meaningful difference, you don't pay much attention to the Senate.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

Joe Biden has had multiple opportunities to stop the genocide he is currently supporting and has not.

So, are you claiming that if the United States stops sending some military aid to Israel, Netanyahu will be unable to continue military operations in Gaza? Because if so, you are sorely mistaken. Israel's military is perfectly self-sufficient, and if you think they particularly care about some UN resolutions, you need to talk to some Israelis.

American support in this is not a significant factor in the outcome. Joe Biden could not unilaterally stop Israeli operations in Gaza unless he declared war on Israel and deployed troops, and I can assure you that isn't going to be happening. Not to mention, China, Russia, India, Europe, and all of South America also exist. Americans do not unilaterally decide everything that happens or doesn't happen in the world. We're not that important.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

And Obama solidly lost his election against Romney if you looked at polls this far out. A strong case can be made that polls at this point are not predictive.

I think Shawn Fein.

Ignoring the fact that mine and most American's immediate reaction to this is "Who?", the fact that he has zero experience in elected office will be disqualifying to most people. He seems like a decent guy, and I'd love to see him in some sort of office some day, but this is not a serious suggestion.

Also, to quote him:

Proud to cast my vote for President @JoeBiden today, the first day of early in-person voting in the state of Michigan!

https://twitter.com/ShawnFainUAW/status/1758917912318902276

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

If you're driving in a bus with 40 people voting on where to go, with 14 wanting to drive to a buffet, 16 wanting to drive off a cliff, and 15 saying that they don't care enough to vote but they don't really want to go to the buffet because they're not hungry, yes, I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

Obama did vs Romney. He was consistently down during May of 2012, and then proceeded to have a slam dunk victory.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

Both instances are willful action that contributes to direct harm to yourself and others.

No, in the context of a voting system, it is not literally a vote for the other option. I don't think your friends tumbling off the cliff will really care much about the distinction that serves no purpose other than personal moral satisfaction.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

And you think that, if only the US hadn't vetoed it, Russia and China would have invaded Israel to stop it?

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

It really needs to be emphasized that polls this far out are basically meaningless. This far out, Romney was significantly outpolling Obama, and that was a blowout.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

It needs to be emphasized that this article is about a medical school, where a strong majority of graduates will become millionaires.

I'm all for increasing education funding, and medical school tuition is a real barrier for under-represented populations, but if you're trying to divert limited funds into helping the most people, medical school is targeting the people who need help the least. Making undergrad at public schools tuition-free would do a lot more.

I'm not gonna tell a random widow how to spend her money, but if we're talking finite tax dollars and public policy, that's a very different question.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

The issue with local policy like that is that school boards or individual teachers are hugely susceptible to parental rage. Countless teachers will talk about how every parent has some reason why little Timmy just absolutely must have his TikTok machine on him at all times, just in case his mom needs to text him and can't be bothered to call the school office.

Having some state-level precedent makes this much easier for local officials, who can just say that they're following state guidelines.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

EDIT: I don’t suppose one of the many downvoters would take the time to explain why giving children the ability to expose teachers like this should be taken away from them in the name of getting kids to pay attention.

To give you a genuine response, it is at least conceivable that the potential harm caused by allowing students with adolescent brains constant access to platforms that are explicitly and intentionally designed to be as addictive and distracting as possible is greater than the positive impact of outing the occasional bigoted teacher.

I'm not saying this is definitively the case because I'm neither a sociologist nor a psychologist, but I think it's fair to say that we can objectively state that this is at least possible.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

I don't think throwing any amount of links at each other is a particularly productive way of answering the question. I can just as easily find an equal number of reports from teachers saying how keeping kids off their phones is nearly impossible and makes it much harder to actually teach. Plenty of teachers would strongly disagree that social media is merely a 'potential' harm.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

Sure thing, here's some random studies.

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/digital-distractions-in-class-linked-to-lower-academic-performance/2023/12

About two-thirds of U.S. students reported that they get distracted by using digital devices, and about 54 percent said they get distracted by other students who are using those resources, the PISA results found.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5648953/

The main findings of the study were that 67% of students were distracted by use of cell phones and 21% of them were extremely disturbed and it affected their learning.

https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1350.pdf

We find that following a ban on phone use, student test scores improve by 6.41% of a standard deviation. Our results indicate that there are no significant gains in student performance if a ban is not widely complied with. Furthermore, this effect is driven by the most disadvantaged and underachieving pupils. Students in the lowest quartile of prior achievement gain 14.23% of a standard deviation, whilst, students in the top quartile are neither positively nor negatively affected by a phone ban. The results suggest that low-achieving students are more likely to be distracted by the presence of mobile phones, while high achievers can focus in the classroom regardless of the mobile phone policy. This also implies that any negative externalities from phone use do not impact on the high achieving students. Schools could significantly reduce the education achievement gap by prohibiting mobile phone use in schools.

Students themselves report phones being significantly distracting, including to other people that aren't using them, and there's even evidence that banning phones directly increases student performance, especially amongst low-performing students.

How does this compare against the benefits of exposing teacher bigotry? I won't pretend to know how to quantify that, but I'm not making the positive claim that banning phones is necessarily worth the loss of ability to expose teachers. My only point is that it is plausible that this is the case, and I think I've supplied decent evidence for that. Policy questions very rarely are between "good option" and "bad option", but rather "bad option" vs "worse option".

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

People always say this, but somehow society and schools did manage to function before 2008.

We know that access to phones causes significantly worse student performance. Is it really worth harming all students' ability to learn just so that, in the event of a rare emergency, a family can get an "all good" message a little bit faster? Schools were perfectly able to locate and track their students during emergencies and notify families before smartphones existed, speaking as someone who was in an extreme weather emergency during school myself during that time.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

To be very clear, I was not suggesting that a cop arrest a student for opening Instagram.

My point is that schools will be significantly more able to resist parental pressure when the school boards quite literally do not have the authority to make the decision. Perhaps there is some room for exceptions with legitimate need, but I'd argue that the bar needs to be pretty high for that, because again, it was in fact possible for students to attend school without phones for essentially all of human history. If a parent really needs to get a message to a student, they can call the office.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

To be clear, speaking as someone who got to enjoy being a gay atheist teenager going to school in rural Missouri, I get your point. However, negative things that directly impacted me or people like me aren't necessarily more important than negative impacts on other people, and when you're faced with decisions that genuinely do come down to direct trade-offs, you have to take a comprehensive and holistic view.

To throw a stupidly exaggerated example out, if I had a button that would fire every homophobic teacher in the country but also reduce the academic performance of all students by 5%, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable pressing it. Of course on the flip side, I probably wouldn't enjoy being faced with the opposite button that increases all students performance by 5% but also introduces some amount of homophobic teachers. My only point here is that these aren't simple and easy questions.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

I'm not against some system of qualified exceptions, though they'd need to be very tight or you'll suddenly find every parent discovering their kid's own special need.

The school system already has all the tools it needs to deal with distractions in the classroom.

From conversations I've had with teachers, this is not at all remotely consistent with what they report.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

The government's main desire is to increase the number of licenses handed out, since Korea's population is aging and more and more doctors will be needed. Current doctors are less than thrilled about that, since more doctors means more competition and lower pay for them. To quote the article,

About 9,000 medical interns and residents have stayed off the job since early last week to protest a government plan to increase medical school admissions by about 65%

If you expect most of them to cave - and facing license suspension I'd imagine most would - then losing a relative handful of doctors that will be more than replaced within a few years is worth it from the government's perspective.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

Wild thought, if you find yourself thinking "the genes of the inferior must be cleansed with the blood of the children", perhaps take a moment of self-reflection.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

The argument is that there exists some level of regulation by the government at which point you can claim that you functionally do not have ownership of the thing in question.

That bar is definitely very high - consider landmark laws where you can be legally forced to maintain certain aesthetics or can be prevented from knocking down a money pit that you also functionally can't sell - hence this case failing, but it's not an absolutely absurd argument in general principle.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

You should know that on Instacart, workers can see your tip before accepting the order. It's functionally a bid, not a tip. I'm sure they have some algorithm for what value they recommend, but to some extent, this is the workers setting the price of their own labor. If you tip too low, you run the risk of the order not being accepted.

The fundamental situation is that delivery work is not actually that cheap, and especially given that these are lower paid workers, they're also more sensitive to inflation and so you'd expect their cost to rise more steeply than other things.

BraveSirZaphod,
BraveSirZaphod avatar

US dollars are a de facto currency in Argentina. You don't hold on to Pesos for long if you can help it.

It's not great.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • everett
  • khanakhh
  • tacticalgear
  • GTA5RPClips
  • DreamBathrooms
  • Youngstown
  • Durango
  • magazineikmin
  • slotface
  • InstantRegret
  • cubers
  • kavyap
  • rosin
  • lostlight
  • rhentai
  • osvaldo12
  • cisconetworking
  • thenastyranch
  • normalnudes
  • mdbf
  • tester
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • Leos
  • HellsKitchen
  • relationshipadvice
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines