frankbreetz

I find this article to be more interesting: https://www.economist.com/international/2026/09/08/are-teena...

Especially the part where it states that part of the issue is in 2000 when Finland had higher test scores then everyone it was attributed to play based learning and less testing. Everyone immediately jumped on this, because if you can have more fun and learn more, of course that is the way to go. This opinion still permeates both teachers and parents. I was of this opinion for a long time, as I went to a rigorous school, and would have enjoyed "play based learning".

It turns out this may have been way off and difficult schools such as those in China and Singapore have the best results. In the Finland example they had only recently switched from more rigorous to more play based, so the rigorous schooling was still being shown in testing. I think we were all a bit bamboozled by this. Maybe it seemed too good to be true and we should have been more critical of the findings. But the play based learning opinion is still strong and we as a society need to move back to more rigor will make stronger students.

the bathroom and kitchen both have faucets! You can potentially trek from the bedroom to the living room

Even more companies are just starting AI/ML initiatives. The tokenmaxxing thing only happened at a handful of tech companies, most companies don't have unlimited money to do this kind of thing.

Once the Pathfinders find out where the real value is there is much more room for growth from companies who have be mindful of budget.

Has anyone's doctor ever not ask them if they exercise during a checkup?

Every checkup for me has started with "what is you diet and exercise like?"

More like if you use services that cost money, why would you expect them for free?

You would pay little to no taxes if you completely removed yourself from society and lived deep in the wilderness, but I but you aren't going to do that. I wonder why that is?

The TSA was created because a plane crashed into a building. Private planes can crash into buildings. Why should they be exempt from TSA checks?

Looking at the employment report that came out today, tech seems to be doing better then most sectors...

"Other professional, scientific, and technical services" grew month over month and year over year

"Information" took a hit, but the bulk of that was "Motion picture and sound recording industries"

"Computing infrastructure providers, data processing, web hosting, and related services" modestly shrunk, but "Web search portals, libraries, archives, and other information service" is the only area to grow under information.

This seems different then what the post says. They also said worse then 2008, but didn't post any information. I would imagine the total market was much smaller, so the while total jobs lost was probably smaller, percentage was probably larger. When I started in 2012, tech would take any with a science degree.

I don't understand the job titles being propose in the post, are the using different BLS data then me?

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Pretty much all companies are created in order to make the owner(s) money.

The issue with hiring many juniors is, when there is another dev boom, all the juniors that were hired, now mids or seniors, are going to jump ship to whoever is going to pay them the most. So, the company can either grow talent and then pay them market rate or hire at market rates from other companies that grew them. Hiring juniors, while good for the industry in the long run, doesn't really benefit an individual company. It is game theory and it is still why senior developers make a lot of money despite there being an oversupply of juniors.

Are you suggesting that this is the fault of the people who said tariff's are a bad idea?

yes, but "salaries and compensation" are people doing work, and profit gets paid to shareholders. Most people would agree that the bulk of taxpayer dollars should go to working people and not shareholders, these are two entirely different categories. All of it goes to people, is such a reduction. We could just cut a check to Elon Musk and claim "All of goes to people". It is important to establish the difference, between paying people for labor and giving people money in the form of profit.

Profit would fall into an entirely different category then "salaries and compensation"

From what I understand this provision is potentially being temporally re-added in the "Big Beautiful Bill"

https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/house-comm...

I may be missing some of your sarcasm, but "Gila Monster's venom" meets the strictest definition of natural.

The total of all federal employees salary is only 4.3% of the budget. If you want to balance the budget using cuts you would have to make significant cuts to all of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Military. These, along with net interest, are not only the largest areas of the budget, but also the ones increasing their share of the budget.

The biggest difference between the balanced budget of the 90s and today is the two large tax cuts pass by Bush and Trump. The reason you probably don't feel that you are paying significant less is because the lion's share of these cuts went to corporations and the upper class. As evidence by the expanding wealth inequality and share of corporate taxes.

This is less then the number of people who retire from the federal government every year. I would expect a significant number of these people to be people who were going to retire anyway and want get out a few months early:

https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/retirement-statistics/

>>The index for shelter rose 0.4 percent in July, accounting for nearly 90 percent of the monthly increase in the all items index.

Shelter seems to be the most tightly coupled item to interest rates. This to me seems like this will create a more hawkish fed.

I have heard some people say that higher interest rates are causing housing to go up because people aren't moving or building houses, but I don't think the fed has the same opinions. I would think the fed would not like to have a 0% interest rate for some time seeing as how it messed up the housing market for a decade.

Best case we see little to no housing appreciation over the next 10 years and that will bring us back to normal. Hopefully we don't see an appreciation like we have the last 10 years, that would not be a sustainable system and would likely further deteriorate the american dream.

Food inflation seems to be doing well, so that is encouraging.

They are heavily regulated now, but it's inconceivable that these industries become more unregulated, it's not hard to make an argument that companies should be able set there own prices.

Not if there is a monopoly on service and you can't afford.

The gas and electric company already know who you are. I wouldn't put it past them to start doing this.

I think the outrage stems from wealthy people having their issue fixed by congress in a timely fashion, when regular people feel like they cannot catch a break.

Housing, Inflation, Healthcare, are all a mess but this problem gets fixed right away.

Around 500k in today's dollars. I can not imagine a group of Adults raising this kind of Money with the expectation of no return, let alone a group of college kids. Shows you the privilege required to be able to make it.

I would guess only around .1 % of the US population would ever get this kind opportunity and we are one of the richest countries in the world.

Terrifying, the Sea temperature especially. I hear a lot of talk of this Year being extra hot due to El Nino. Hopefully that explains the extreme spike we, see last year running into this year, and it's not runaway temperature increases.

yeah, obviously they were adults when their biological kids were raised and even if the weren't the primary, they surely would be hands on most of the time.

>We don't have to.

I don't understand this. Should I carry around a backpack with a music player, several book, video camera, and planner?

Would that be a better situation, then periodically looking at my phone?

Maybe they were taking a day off work made only possible by being available.

Maybe they were reading a book.

Maybe they were planning dinners for the week.

Maybe they were scheduling a play date for their kids.

We do everything on our phones.

I think 46% of parents being distracted sometimes by any of those things is not at all problematic. Maybe kids can learn to wait 2 minutes.

Why is it base off salary and not spend?

does this assume I contribute 15% to 401k or do I take 15% off my salary?

Does this assume my house is gonna be paid off?

What are the SS assumptions?

Seems like a better plan then deciding when I am going to die. What if I plan on living to my 80s, but make it to my 100s?

If you want you income to increase with inflation you can't spend the entire rate of return. So If you are using a 5% return you should really only spend 2%, if you go with the current inflation rate.