P0l83q4p1Hw3Ul

Only 2 articles by the author, so I wouldn't strongly associate them with the site.

No information about author, and published on a site like that because such topics are forbidden, so I wouldn't say that's a good tool for judging the truthfulness/quality.

Have to look at the details and see if they align with what is verifiable.

Some of the claims can be verified by video footage that is widely available online. Many people will still dispute those claims.

Does that subtract from the value of the article?

The question one might ask is, "did the author write this because they're racist, or are they just sharing their experience and no one else would dare publish it?"

Given there are multiple ways of verifying the details, I'd go with "just sharing their experience".

It's not clear to me how funding plays a leading role in policies such as "let everyone pass".

Who's responsibility is it to ensure that what is best for the management (state and district admin) is also what is best for student education?

I'm not too familiar with the details of management here, but is it even possible for public schools (and other government operations) to have proper incentives given voters don't care about results? I suppose "school-choice", which happens to be vehemently opposed by Democrats, would be the only way.

I like him more after reading it.

All the stories had neat ideas, demonstrated his personality and showed what drove him. Of course it wasn't laid out directly in a boring technical book that no one is going to read.

Also, what's up with people ignoring the fine line between crazy and genius, and thinking all these genius are supposed to be completely normal people?

What about pointing out more factually based claims such as which groups commit more crimes, etc?

No idea what Paxos is.

My understanding is that JDR started his business at 20, got into oil at 24, bought out his partners, started a new partnership, and then ended that partnership at 31, naming the part of the business he got Standard Oil.

What's worse?

1. People getting 2-3 narratives from mainstream news sources, one of which they believe, both of which are often false.

2. People getting 100 narratives from unknown sources, none of which they fully believe, a handful they think are plausible, most are false.

It's good to have everyone on the same page believing what is true, horrible to have everyone on the same page believing what is false. Given that the mainstream can't be trusted, I'll go with #2.

$1-10 per 1k views.

73m views / 15 years = 5.2m views/year

=$5.2k/year - $52k/year.

Turn off Adblock and see if an ad plays.