julianapostate

That’s 1% not the 10% from the original comment

Everyone’s political signaling detector had its sensitivity cranked up.

Nowaday political views are a lifestyle.

See! Even the definition of a centrist is political!

>School performance is affected by budget, which is paid via taxation, as well as resources available from the parents' contributions.

Thats probably 10% of it. The socioecomic status and drive of the parents is probably 75% of it. If you bring in low SES people / low drive people into a successful school district its common sense the school will be worse off handling their children. So as a home owner you have lost some piece (albeit potentially small) of the good school district you paid for when you bought your house, and your indirectly having them to subsidize other peoples children, but as in articles like this, misrepresenting the data and hoping that they dont realize their having the value of their assets chipped away at in the name of social welfare.

>The cumulative effect is that poorer people receive a poorer education, which compounds over generations, and causing a negative feedback loop.

I agree and it would actually make some sense for the well off with good school districts to carry out such programs to lift other people out of poverty. but when you see articles like this that are so thoroughly dishonest about true cost, it makes sense you would outright reject it because they aren't going to acknowledge you are even giving something up. and if thats their perspective, then they can go as far as they want with it, so your are better off not giving an inch.

Tim Berners-lee should have stopped to consider the potential for dark web criminality before he developed the internet.

how would one, in good faith, cite a self-survey of people committing unemployment insurance fraud. people get laid off and are making ok money are likely not going to try as hard to find a new job.

Liberals complain about the cotton piece and the editor resigns 4 days later. Scott Alexander deletes his blog and NYT has pretended nothing happened.

im curious how either of those links prove anything, the first seems like a smart rite of passage and the second is meaningless without context... you can generally find familial Sexual Abuse in any part of the world.

> The internet wants you to believe you aren’t doing enough with all that “extra time” you have now

No it doesnt. the article's proof is about 8 links (half of which come from the nytimes itself). 8 links on whole internet suggesting things people can do at home because duh its boring being stuck at home. This is a made up narrative for a made up backlash.

by that logic you should also give that pass to beer and cigarettes, as they are comparably addictive and unhealthy. I think it's more cruel to have no standards for expecting responsible eating and spending as it only leads to more suffering down the line for ones family.

so wait i thought wetlands were super special and important?.. but apparently we got rid of 99% all the ones in the bay area 100 years ago with no ecological catastrophe to attribute to it?

fyi for anyone curious on that source.. those numbers come from america's largest labor union and professional interest group for public school teachers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education_Association

does she work summers too? winter break, spring break?

the article points out that even foods that you might not consider hyper-palatable but are processed, like sausage still seem to follow the pattern.

the point isnt that he's not exceptional, the point is he's not frontpage news exceptional.