mrangle

Your individual opinion of Australia, name calling, appeal to group behavior, and vague "things that work everywhere" doesn't negate the fact that not voting is a form of protest (or often just a simple preference) that a healthy democracy shouldn't have an issue with.

After all, if nine months of partisan rioting in an election season is kosher before a "free and fair election", which leads to over twenty five deaths, then not voting shouldn't be a big deal.

Unless, of course, a compulsory level turnout has value in lending legitimacy given the the broader context of antidemocratic events.

Democratic governments should not have the political protection of citing the compulsory turnout. Whether the political currency lent by the compulsory turnout is implied or overtly cited.

The political currency that the turnout lends is something that needs to be earned via the legitimate practice of government.

If the government processes become corrupt, then the voter turnout should be one avenue of reflecting that opinion by the populace.

The choice to withhold a vote is as democratically "sacred" as the right to vote.

I hear you, but it's still not analogous. I admit to being less than precise in my prior response, specifically.

A degree isn't a car, nor is it a computer. Nor is it something that you buy. You pay for the privilege to earn it.

The problem is that, during that earning process, an institution has the power to stop you from proceeding with no representation. The only failsafes in place are there to protect the institution.

Specifics as to how this can occur are another deep discussion. The takeaway is that a 50k or 100k USD degree is fraught with inherent risk that, even if unusually realized, merits easier loan terms. Due to the core nature of what a degree is and how it is obtained.

The day that they federally neuter the power of colleges to determine student progress outside of the grading system, or better yet they give students an easy way to gain advocacy, is the day that I will more or less agree with you.

ID isn't a poll tax because it isn't a poll tax. Voter ID requirements are no more discriminatory than they are for air travel.

Compulsory voting is what regimes do when their government is so obviously corrupt that a strong voter turnout is the only thing left that lends an air of democracy. Most often suggested if flagging voter turnout might be seen as a possible public indictment of the system's democratic legitimacy. Now we can't have that sort of protest. The People will be enthusiastic! lol.

A 50k car almost always drives, and you don't risk someone that doesn't like you telling you that you can't get the title after you've paid.

Education is a unique product, which I'd argue warrants favorable loan terms. Ignoring the inability to declare bankruptcy.

Even in non-scam programs, there's sometimes a massive amount of unknowable hazard on the path to a degree. And whether or not the degree is attained, the debt is still due.

In terms of hazard, I don't mean grades. Assume perfect grades. Especially in graduate programs, interpersonal politics can permanently wreck students who then have no effective recourse.

Examples and intricacies of what I'm trying to imply, aside, consider that education is a unique product that costs a lot of money but, in the process of attaining the product, you aren't treated as a customer but as if your position is precarious. Grades aside. Whatever specifics you might imagine, as they would vary, assume that the system is set up to protect the school that is collecting money. Not the person paying it.

Coming back around to my ultimate point about loan terms and risk.

It seems like you don't like Hyundai. What's childish is your resort to ad hominem because you disagree.

It's not free labor anymore than the car was free. It's a fix of product that was defective off of the line. The necessity of the fix being evidence of the defect.

Car buyers are not automotive cybersecurity engineers, and they can never be expected to be. Caveat Emptor is a hilarious remark for this situation.

If security flaw is so egregious as to warrant a patch, then the patch should be considered to be a fix of a defective product and free.

If the situation doesn't rise to that level of severity, then it follows that a patch isn't necessary.

If GM were to offer lock cylinder replacements because their original cylinders were so flawed as to warrant them, then yes the cylinder replacements should be free. The sold product was not as described.

If the original cylinders aren't so flawed as to warrant a replacement, then no cylinder replacement would be offered.

Are GM cylinder replacements being offered? If not, then your analogy isn't analogous.

I didn't know Hyundai corporate defenders were so unrealistic and childish.

>If "just persuade them with your good ideas" was a workable solution it would've worked at least once by now

If I have this right: your measurement for whether or not people are in their right mind is if they take to your specific ideas?

Have you considered the possibility that people are most often persuaded by good ideas and your ideas are awful?

And insofar as you present them in an ostensibly good light, you are lying somewhere in the presentation and people can see that.

To be clear, your perspective is that everyone else is a psychopath or so much dumber than you, personally, as to be led by psychopaths.

And it's not you that's dumber than most others, nor who is led by the psychopath(s), nor who is the psychopath that needs to advance their ideas by marginalizing people who have other ideas.

And the strategy is to marginalize people because...checks notes... your ideas are unpalatable to the population. For no good reason.

Why are your ideas unpalatable to the population, from their perspective?

Any good policy wonk will know that much, will be able to explain the opposition's reasons accurately and in detail, and will be able to steel-man their own argument utilizing that perspective.

Whereas a manipulative person will avoid that level of analysis.

It doesn't matter whether or not you believe me. You believing me doesn't even begin to calculate into a single thought that I have.

Besides that, not believing someone is not an argument. On these issues, it means that you lack realistic perspective and have nothing to say.

Aside from what it makes you to discount someone's very real trauma, as your only patter.

I'm observing how this is breaking down into questioning where I live (in another post), or whether what I say happened actually happened.

Should I not believe that people's post's here defending cities are from legitimate experience (at least as stated, in their bubbles)?

What happened to the "believe" people ethic?

I don't live in Oakland. What do you want me to read carefully, super-sleuth? To what purpose? In spite of your masterful rhetorical question, you're wrong about the event in question and location.

Consider that a lot of the country was terrorized in a manner that you and much of the nation is blind to. These are people who will be forming opinions and voting for a long time to come.

Given that the Press's obvious mandate was to whitewash the violence so that it continued.

You can't be good with nine months of nationwide riots and then ever think that you understand the impact or can get a handle on everything that occurred via zero-start google searches.

Ok, so still undermining. Got it.

Irrelevant babble aside that was already read and refuted with wikipedia information.

I'm not your friend, palooka.

You questioning my experience and where I live isn't an argument.

In liberal circles, we "believe" people. Remember? Especially those with bad experiences.

You questioning me just means that you can't tolerate people with differing experiences having opinions and perspectives that are counter to your own.

What I said is factual.

You're a sheltered person with a false entitlement to an opinion on this specific matter.

I live in a major city between Boston and DC. I've implied enough of my experience to warrant telling you to shove your rude scare quotes up your a*.

I've also lived in NYC. I have family that still lives in NYC. Who was just punched in the face for the second time in a couple of years, walking home at night. And that's in "safe" lower Manhattan.

What does where you live have to do where I live?

Just like the "person who walks with cameras", the only thing that you are communicating is that you are privileged and awful on a couple of levels. One of which is having zero perspective and real experience living in an urban area that is outside of wealthier zones and, especially in poorer cities, is only barely managed by police. Bourgeoise bubble living does not entitle you to having a policy opinion on how the poorer areas of cities should be managed, what it's like living in them let alone growing up in them, and on how they are doing on the street level. "Relativity" aside.

Are your ideas not good enough to persuade?

I live in a high crime area of a major city.

>There is no undermining, as everyone living in the cities realizes.

I remember that "Defund the Police" is the general mantra of one side of the isle.

You aren't paying attention. I stated that I was born and raised in a (major) city, and I still live in an area that many on HN and virtually all bourgeoise urban-bubble people would not live.

And so who are you trying to gaslight, exactly?

I don't assert that Seattle is perfect, but Seattle is a cakewalk. One of the nicest and per-capita wealthiest cities in the country. But with a sizeable population of bored grown toddlers. A subgroup of whom are professional terrorists, while living in a priveleged city on the World scale. Spare me your faux "urbanite on a walk" homily.

The nine months of rioting in 2020 were nine months of partisan terrorism purposefully leading exactly up to an election. Funny that, in the context of those so concerned with democracy.

We were terrorized, absolutely. It caused me to think twice about voting at all, out of fear. During one weekend in which police were hamstrung by the mayor in favor of rioters, we had two large bombs go off in my neighborhood. While the power happened to be off for 72 hours. Have you ever felt the deep vibration from a close domestic terrorist bomb in the dark? Twice? How about during election season?

Would you like to go into my personal experiences with urban crime? How many gun barrels have you stared down? How many times have you been punched in public by a stranger, while just standing there? How many times did that lead to a full blown street fight, out of self-defense? How many times have you been robbed on the sidewalk? How many friends of yours have been targeted and murdered on the sidewalk? How about while in grade school? Yes, I'm Caucasian. I'm overeducated, including graduating on a full-ride from a school that existed a long time before the United States did. That makes no difference.

You deserve a string of derogatory names, but decorum prevents.

Born and raised, and still living in an area that you likely wouldn't. You have no idea.

To be clear, not advocating for the military on the streets.

However, the people who do sympathize with that will forever increase as ineffectiveness in policing crime does.

If the military is on the streets, and there is broad support for it, then objectively speaking it's because we're at a tipping point of imbalance in policing crime.

The question then becomes, even with the military outside of their windows, would the people who start stuttering the word "fascist" in response have hindsight regret in not better enabling civilian policing to inhibit crime?

Or will they continue to deny the tipping point?

At what point is undermining of civilian police the same thing as advancing us toward military streets?

No one can have everything. If a balance isn't kept, then aberrations in norms will begin to occur. Going either way.

There isn't a major city in the country in which crime isn't a complete embarrassment, objectively intolerable, and a major hazard. Every other perspective is equivocation.

We need to acknowledge that well-funded science driven by robust mission-focused systems (like pharma companies) is often a different animal than the field of science generally. In the below comments, I'm speaking about the latter.

In my experience good science is much rarer than bad.

Also, politics and hidden hands (eg: third party funding sources) have been shaping science likely since science's inception. It's an open secret that quite often science is not scientific. And that if you are seeing a published paper like this, then critiques have willfully ignored that fact.

I'm sure that this subtly varies from field to field, but I think that one tends to accept and become numb to the dross. Because it is overwhelming. The approach becomes to quietly try to filter for and celebrate better science, and otherwise say nothing. Beyond being overwhelmed, this approach may be necessary for political survival in some fields.

What's the practical difference between A Bezos editorial and an editorial board editorial from a paper that he owns?

Whether I'm scolded by Bezos or Bezos's editorial board, it's still being scolded by Bezos. Or whomever owns the next media outlet in question.

After all if Bezos openly controls the editorial direction of the paper at any point in time, then it would be ridiculous to assume that any media outlet's editorial staff is not directionally influenced by their employer generally.

You don't believe that media ownership by any given billionaire influences media opinion with which you agree?

That's a strange take for someone whom I assume asserts a moral logic in their worldview. How can billionaires only be guilty of media control when you disagree with the editorial direction?

What does "every billionaire is a policy mistake mean" in the context of my second question? Your comment seems like a non sequitur.

It seems like an interesting idea.

I'd be intrigued, but would quickly click away.

You're forgoing the part of the sales cycle where you demonstrate what you are offering. It goes from telling me, briefly, to asking for a credit card.

I rarely to never give a credit card in exchange for a free trial. Not without some type of proof of concept, first.

It's like being asked for a credit card by someone who approaches me on the street and asks me to trust them.

Absent widespread recommendations, If I don't have a better idea of what I'm buying then I won't buy it.

Aren't Americans also scolded by oligarchs, via the media that oligarchs own, when the scolding is of the type with which you agree?

Isn't oligarch decision making what causes media to also pursue directions with which you agree?

Those teachers couldn't be more wrong. Though, to clarify I am referring to reading and the exposure to it. We'd need someone who is informed on the developmental process of math skill to comment on "times tables".

"Can do something" is carrying a lot of weight here. I explained how it is in practice.

That sounds sort of noble, perhaps, but that's not how it works. Ignoring the fact that there is more than enough time in childhood for what you propose, reading, and much else.

Cognitive development is a process, of which language development and reading are a major subset. That development is always in-process.

The longer that one waits to start children down the path of language development skills, the lesser the chance that they will be able to fully develop their potential for that skill.

For example if you speak to a child less than you should or could, that child's language and overall cognitive development will be significantly disadvantaged when compared to a child with similar potential but much more attentive parents.

Think of a disability where one hears less language, and then research developmental outcomes for that group.

The same carries over to reading skill. The earlier that you start, and the more that they get, both listening and eventually reading themselves, the much higher likelihood that they will become an advanced reader.

You aren't jamming them up. You are giving them an immense lifelong gift. In addition to attending to a significant cognitive need.

And again, plenty of children raised with reading are also commonly taught be adept at technical and manual skills. Most people would choose a smarter mechanic, who among other things has the proficiency to read complex documentation.

Kids want to be read stories at night. Its a major developmental need. You should read stories to your kids. Then, when they are ready, you should buy them simple books like comics. Then age appropriate books as they are ready. Content doesn't matter so much. It's mostly the volume of reading that matters. Every little bit helps.

SLP here. I hear you. But the reality is greyer. Yes, it's easy for anyone and everyone to see the financial layer of developmental services. But virtually 100% of working SLPs care about getting clients to their goals, even if that client's access to services is determined by insurance.

Money is an inescapable reality for every service in society. But most clinics are busy, and so there isn't a real incentive to try to slow walk clients. Which would be radically corrupt on a number of levels. Even if some backroom financial functionary in a clinic were to have that thought on occasion. I've never heard it verbalized nor seen any evidence of it trickling down from management.

Moreover, most (but not all) clients will be perpetually slightly behind if they start behind. Even if they catch up at a faster rate, with the help of services. Thereby justifying services if the family wants them. But that's not the same as clinic level corruption. It's just a fact of cognitive development. But there's no better advertisement for a clinic or clinician than graduating a client.

Although I can't speak to reading in the following regard, I agree that there are sometimes lesser supported therapy methods for some delays. This is where the art of picking one's therapist is important, as they differ and what they use is within their discretion. As is the case across the rehab field.

Whatever the culture and resources of the parents, the buck stops at home.

Gaining the ability to read begins from birth, and by the time that kids are school age they should be clamoring for books if the parents did their job.

After time-worn basic reading instruction in first grade, it's a matter of parents enforcing reading-time at home for school mandated reading. Then providing access to the reading material that the child desires for their free reading. Whatever it is. Book-bound comic strips are an early popular grade-level choice, and are fantastic. If a child is behind, then go simpler. Everything else is a band-aid or less practical if not detrimental in comparison. Some kids need services if they have deficits, but that doesn't imply that the standard practice is flawed. All top readers came out of this type of early progression. So have most middling readers, often just separated by the amount of time they've chosen to put in. Or were compelled to put in.

Demanding the conflation of opinion with expert instruction is one reason why Media is in terminal decline.

A large part of credibility in expertise is the ability to naturally lead. People tend to follow who reads as credible. If someone doesn't read as such, it isn't the fault their missing audience.

If they are credible and yet lack the ability to communicate that, I'd suggest that's both rare in-practice but would be a dire skill issue. Examining what is wrong with them and why better people aren't employed would be the logical next step.

This should be illegal, outright.

Monetary systems and their economies are innately dystopian, and that can't be changed, but given that I'm a reluctant capitalist. Simply because the other option is much worse and incomparably more dishonest. But if private industry wants to remain relatively unrestricted it has to operate in good faith. Which means not pushing the envelope toward de facto slavery conditions, as is its nature to do. It needs self-control. If industry can't control itself, it's making the case for being hyper-regulated. And then its down-hill from there.

Industry and labor are in an inescapable social contract, the balance of which determines wider society's quality of life. Both factions have to commit to the middle, relatively speaking.

In part, that means that the job market standard doesn't evolve to six days of double shifts. Hire a second shift, and retreat from the type of psychopathy that advanced society wisely left behind.