Decentralized exchanges exist, but they can't trade with fiat money. One of the reasons why stablecoins exist.
130 karma · joined December 31, 2021
I don't think that means everything is fine as it is, but also that simply getting rid of subjects because people don't enjoy them may be too much.
To start, I think everybody should be able to do financial calculations (like compounding interest), and be able to decipher the charts they are being bombarded with every day in the media.
Other than that I guess I agree with some other posters that it is the people who figure thinks out who are often also good in maths. I am not even sure how to teach that and if traditional maths at school helps.
I don't claim simply learning maths is sufficient - I mean math in the form of what is a proof, statistical reasoning, things like that.
In general I don't think we ever even looked at a paper or "study" and tried to find tell-tale signs of bad science. That should change.
Maybe a more useful discussion would be how to measure success and how to determine what is necessary? This "8th grade maths is enough" is a bit too handwavy.
I can actually imagine that there would not have to be as much focus on doing calculations on paper or in one's head, as everybody has a calculator ready at all times these days. As one example.
I mean I personally think school is overrated, especially with high quality YouTube videos available for everything. But I don't think that is a common notion?
Edit: OK, you know what, why not - yes, abolish schools! They are just prisons for kids.
A good foundation in understanding scientific claims and evaluating proofs seems essential in such times. Maths is an essential part of that.
All good.
That is not to say that ALL predictions are necessarily wrong, but enough to be wary of the fear mongering. Especially since dramatic predictions probably yield more government money.
I didn't even make such references, but your snark claiming renewable energy couldn't possibly have ulterior motives makes no sense.
It is also not a given that it reduces pollution. Until very recently, solar panels cost more energy to make than they would yield. I've hear claims it is different now, but I can not yet buy a solar panel for my house that would make economic sense. That seems odd, because if they would yield a net win in energy, it should be available to buy.
In my country they will now also cut down a historic wood to make space for wind power.
Hydrological dams are also famous for wrecking havoc with ecosystems.
Most ecological issues that are attributed to climate change these days are actually caused by humans destroying nature directly - cutting down woods, eliminating safe spaces for animals and insects, messing with rivers, building cities that let the ground sack into the see, stuff like that.
Not sure how active for example "Fridays For Future" is in your country?
Relentless propaganda: if you have kids in school, odds are any event they plan will be littered with climate change stuff, for example. My kids school decided cakes for the next event will have to be vegan because it is better for the climate, for example. Science projects will be about climate something. And that is just school, media is on a whole other level.
The only thing more popular atm is the transgender craze.
One thing women usually get in exchange is the privilege to choose to stay home with their children.
Now how hard it is to stay home and provide for the children every couple has to decide for themselves. But yeah, I personally will claim that it is not as hard as most jobs, putting a roof above the families head and so on.
You can also check the cost of household services (cleaning, cooking, washing) to estimate the value a male housekeeper brings to the table. I think a husband as housekeeper is usually more expensive.
The underlying biological reality is that making children is more costly for women than for men. The rest follows from that.
I think therefore that you have the skewed view.
"I don't think the transactional and combative assumption of gender relations is really applicable"
It is the low level consideration of evolution - other things are layered on top, like the construct of "love" enabling people to stick together.
"the man is "convincing" the woman to have "their" child, and shouldn't "get it for free""
So you don't think a man fathering a child should take care of the mother and child? You wouldn't think it bad style to father a child and then leave mother and child to their own devices?
In any case, as I explained, the mother invests more into bringing the child to life than the father, so doesn't it seem fair if the father tries to even the scales by providing other things?
"In my reality, women usually want to have children, even more so than men."
Sure, but they need food and shelter to succeed in raising those children.
And in these examples, what would be the repercussions for being perceived as lazy? If he wants a family, the problem for the part time working man would presumably still to be able to provide for a family, which would not be an issue of perception, but of actual shortage of money. If he doesn't want a family, it doesn't matter. The difference is that a woman would never need to earn enough to provide for a family, so the judgement "too lazy to provide for a family" would not apply.
And a messy woman's household will be seen and judged by whom, exactly?
People are being "liberated from gender roles" merely by technological progress: washing machines and the likes making household chores not a fulltime job, office jobs being doable even while pregnant, that sort of thing. The claim that people choose jobs just because of societal expectations is unproven.
Ultimately, once again, the government is telling me how I have to work or run my business. I didn't ask them to do that, and I don't want them to do that.