RelativeDelta

"Are the projects that inefficient?"

Anecdotally, yes. In my experience most projects are carried by a select few 'Heroes' doing the majority of the difficult implementation and innovation, tied together by a larger volume of less impressive but still critical connective work.

From my reading, the author's suggestion is that, functionally, most teams understand their goal and how to work towards it without regard or 'real' benefit from an overseer.

It's a strong claim, and one that should be relatively easy to test if an organization or research team wanted to.

This reads more like getting a language model to write a fanfiction about itself rather than jumpstarting any kind of self-preserving instinct, let alone self-perception.

I think if we don't recognize we're already waist-deep in a cold civil war (not only in America, but in most of the global 'West') we are delusional.

The common thread linking all these hypocritical examples of condoning or opposing are that people are supportive of people companies and products they believe advance their worldview while working for the destruction of the ones that oppose them.

The question people should be asking themselves now is which 'side' will work out better for you and your family in the long run? Identity politics gaining in prominence makes this especially important.

This seems wildly easy to exploit.

You got it exactly. When your government increases your money supply by 40% price pressure is eventually going up (albeit not linearly, and with a short delay).

Add to this the tendency of all currencies to lose value over time, and it's a wonder people don't actively try to hold as little cash as is feasible.

It seems common to me. It's likely to become even more prevalent if ESG quotas/rankings become entrenched into the financial sector which appears possible.

Just anecdotally, a coworker of mine was promoted into a role he had no skills or history for (in a completely different department) because the HR head demanded it. We had to hire a second guy to 'train' him into his role but it's been a year and the hire is still the go-to for those role responsibilities.

It seems to me to be silly at best and delusional at worst, but who knows. We'll see in the end.

TLDR: The bill doesn't ban theoretical models, it gates them behind an intro course that cannot be itself based in theoretics.

The bill only applies the restrictions to general ("open") courses, and only applies to courses who's curriculum is solely based in theoretics.

IE, in an intro Phys course you can cover theoretical models as part of the general curriculum because the entire cuticular model is not based in them. It can be a unit, but it can't be the course.

Courses based entirely on theoretical models aren't banned above the general level. Theory-based courses are allowed, but only above the general-tier.

That being said, some better language around how the bill determines what is and is not 'theoretical' would be interesting.

This seems to track the larger trend of Covid-induced out-of-classroom learning loss.

I'd be very interested to see how this tracks across states/counties with a higher usage of charter school vs those more reliant on the public system.

This is just anecdotal but glancing around the counties I'm at least somewhat familiar with seems to indicate to me that voucher programs seem to attenuate this loss.

> I think a more interesting question is why as a society do we allow people to have infinite wealth?

Because 'money' is just a denomination of share-of-control over the resources of the system that enforces it.

Therefore any person who has demonstrated their ability to deploy resources effectively (by whatever evaluative method used) 'earns' access to higher resource volumes to pursue their endeavors.

Get access to volumes above a certain level and your 'infinite wealth' criteria kick in.