mrangle

It's supposed to be prescriptive because its a literature education list.

Where we may agree is that Mensa isn't in the business of measuring education, but instead of horsepower.

And the reading way toward maximizing a developing child's base ability to think is to read as much as possible, which will necessarily be what piques their fancy much of the time.

But literature education and recreational reading shouldn't mean one doesn't engage in the other. Every high performing child does both, at least to meet the the standards with which I'm familiar.

Still I'm unsure as to why Mensa feels the need to cobble together a basic prep school reading list, if wildly uncurated.

To your point, something more in line with their rasion d'etre might be to provide short best of lists for recreational, slightly advanced reading in age appropriate genres.

No. Respectfully, you don't understand how money works and the proposal of vaguely applied ten cent terms can't make up for that. Ironically, this means that you also don't understand socialism.

Capitalism is simply the innate nature and structure of the monetary system. The maintenance of the properties of money require capitalism. Otherwise, you will begin to not have money. No matter what word that you use for it. I'm not saying that this is a good thing. It's just a concrete thing.

The more socialism that you apply, especially in terms of shelf goods, the less actual money that you have. Due to how prices will react, what you begin to have is something akin to allotted credits or even just de facto allotted goods. The former which necessarily implies price controls. The only question then is how much food each person will be allotted.

Tell me which companies, ahem, I mean "socialist countries" aim to maximize free GDP allotment (in this case for food) to each individual citizen instead of minimize it to the lowest possible level? Consider a hypothetical wherein this socialist country has 300 million people.

The negatives of capitalism are not because of capitalism. They are because of the structural nature of money, which only maintains value roughly relative to the degree to which a large amount of people don't have it.

Smart countries attempt to maximize socialist benefits without affecting their currency value, in order to control and promote social stability to the best of their ability. But this generally excludes socialism for common goods, or else the characteristics of money begin to change.

This is how the monetary system works. While your math is inaccurate in terms of the spirit of what it is attempting to show, correcting for that, its still the way of the world until money is no longer a thing.

This is cringe idealism. It bears no resemblance to the way things work.

Before maximizing wages and minimizing profit, your interest as workers is to assure that the owner is provided with enough financial motivation to both stay in business and not find substitute employees or solutions for the work that you do.

Both can be true at the same time, and are:

Housing costs in the US are much more complicated than consumer supply and demand measurements indicate

The US housing supply is embarrassingly ancient, overpriced (especially considering condition), and deficient in volume (especially given quality).

You don't really have an argument when $1500 gets renters baseboard heating in a 40+ year old building in a secondary city.

How can regulation be "controlled for"?

"Constant" was misused as a formal term, as admitted. Regulation is still always a varying factor and can't be controlled for. My other points stand.

You're misusing the word "factor".

Regulation is always a factor in the United States. Whether it is a significant or insignificant factor is the question. Regulation is historically in flux, and local, which is why it can't be controlled for. And why would it be, besides?

Perhaps I misapplied the word "constant". What I meant to say is that theoretically there could be a varying formal measurement, but that this is impractical for the reasons stated.

Respectfully, why would data be controlled for "regulatory limits" and "economic stagnation"? Regulation is a constant factor, historically, not something that would be controlled for. You could have something like a "regulatory constant" but then you would need one, historically, to make it meaningful. It would also likely have to be local. None of that will exist. How exactly do you define "economic stagnation" and how would one control for it, assuming for one second that would be desirable to do so?

There is no "law of supply and demand" in the real market, only in textbooks. There is only the factor of supply and demand. Therefore, raw supply and demand is not an assumed default explanation for pricing. No one is obligated to explain why supply doesn't seem to explain price. Though, anyone is welcome to pitch as to why it might for a particular circumstance.

Other variables that are sometimes interlinked: international cash buyers, institutional cash buyers, global dollar and therefore asset and commodity value in USD (inflation), skilled labor costs and availability, interest rates, the white and blue collar unemployment rates, changing lending criteria, the cost of gasoline, regional population fluctuations, the bond market, etc.

You're out of your depth in regard to the German people example, but correct on your very simple main point.

That's wrong.

It is terrorism, indisputably. Arguing other point is relatively inconsequential. But if we were to argue the point, to argue that spray-paint isn't "violence" isn't going to have much credibility when it's perceived to be from the long standing "words are violence" and "silence is violence" crowd. A selective standard is no standard at all. How the spray paint differs is that it is property destruction in service of intimidation toward a political end.

Because it's terrorism.

I'll be clearer and repost theirs.

>The most common ancestry in the US is German, not English, but English is still the dominant language. Language isn't DNA.

Their specific point is that "language isn't DNA". To support that argument they note that Continental German immigrants to America now speak English.

My specific point is that English originates not only within the language family of German speaking peoples, but that it originated with the DNA pools that comprise Northern Germany.

Therefore, I don't see how "the Germans are speaking English" makes the point that language isn't DNA.

I'm not saying that it is, at all. Its very obviously not. But the example being argued didn't make that point.

And yet the genetic differences are so insignificant so as to make them pointless to mention in the context of (paraphrasing) "it's super strange that German immigrants speak the Germanic English language that originates from the cultural region of Northern Germany".

This is both pedantic and probably worth the correction. English is a Germanic language, originated in an exceedingly small continental territory nestled among other Germanics. Virtually no one would be able to discern the Germanic people who originated the English language from other Germanic people. If you are referring to the English people from the UK, then of course they are more mixed. But the English language was brought to the UK by the aforementioned continental tribe(s).

Media's aim is to keep people emotionally hooked on short term directional adjustments in political trajectory, including the presented minutia of the events that seem to determine it.

The only way to consume news, without subjecting oneself to the inner turmoil that the news is designed to produce, is to develop a long term theory and then just check in with the headlines to make sure that things are progressing toward it.

If they don't seem to be, adjust the theory and then keep-on with the aforementioned method.

Sure, some people emotionally need to be apprised of the tragedy of every story. They may even convince themselves that the World's trajectory hangs on the balance of every event. I'd suggest that this is both irrational and hints at addiction behavior. But if this isn't you, or you want to become less addicted, then give the above method a try.

After awhile, you'll begin to admire the efficiency of and relative inner-peace from your new hard-won detachment skill.

Universally, articles that attempt to advance these views tend to be politically and morally chaotic.

Their recommendations are always vague and therefore open to political exploitation. Ignored or amplified when expedient and when someone with an actual stake has something on the line.

Cowardly.

Question: in a public bureaucracy that is always naturally intent on protecting itself but which also has rules and a judiciary, who is responsible for ignoring or amplifying intentionally vague external standards of morality? Political actors, perhaps?

The sum effects seem to be the desire to leave lower level ranks politically vulnerable and threatened by non-military political actors. And therefore perhaps to undermine the military hierarchy in general, with implied threats.

I agree that there are likely times to not follow orders, but the rules surrounding when that is to be the case cannot be vague whatsoever. Those times can not be subject to significant interpretation if we are to see such critiques as honest and not underhanded.

It's no surprise that the Washington Post is capitalizing on domestic terrorism for issues that it approves of.

The single reason that it is able to do this is that these outlets were not held to legal account for doing the same thing surrounding George Floyd.

At least they aren't allowing their January 6th rhetoric to cloud their journalistic vision.

There is no "anger at US Health insurers" that is new. Or is otherwise beyond the anger at the way the system is forced to balance itself in any other arena in which fees, costs, and profit are always in relative flux and people can't get it all.

The only novelty in this anger is that someone was murdered and now the Washington Post has declared the murderers issue to be sanctified. Which is exactly what you aren't supposed to do, or at least when you aren't supposed to do it, when you don't want to be seen to be supporting domestic terrorism.

The insurance industry sucks, but it sucks by its nature. Its not "broken" nor widely exploited except in the notion that its existence is a corrupt economic act.

But its current detractors wouldn't dare be rid of it. Oh no, it isn't that bad. And yet, we are in another period of being harangued with direct and indirect sympathies for murder.

Let's be super-clear.

If you sympathize with or outright support this, you are either clinically diagnosable as a psychopath or are under the sway of one or many.

If you are a psychopath yourself, your worldview is rejected in-full by anyone with normal psychology. Stuff your psychopathic attempts at persuasion.

If you are generally a normal person but found yourself swayed by the techniques of psychopathic people, many of whom exist in society's institutions and who do not have your best interests at heart, you should take some time, deeply rethink this, and then reject it.

If you do not reject this, ultimately, you belong on a number of watch lists, full stop, as you are a supporter of domestic terrorism that seeks to murder people in cold blood.

But reject it.

This pseudo-hysteria is a criminal trap, and beyond that its logic is complete nonsense.

If this man was guilty of anything, then the law would have held him accountable. He was not guilty in terms of how he delivered service, and anything further that he may have been guilty of his murderer deprived society of finding out. Officially, he's innocent.

Every time that a citizen is "removed" by psychopaths by reason of their perceived arbitrary complaints, immediately there is another person who meets the same or arbitrarily adjusted criteria. The criteria will be adjusted to target people. There will never be even-ground for the psychopaths, and their follower-victims, who are justifying this.

In this discussion, I was asked if the murdered CEO didn't share responsibility for the supposed fact that UH is "the hardest to deal with and rejects the most claims". For one second, let's ignore that denying claims is a part of the root health insurance business model that every single payer advocate wants: only to be run by the government. For one moment, let's ignore that the CEO did not invent the health insurance industry, nor is he responsible for its continuity. Let's assume that UH soon "reforms" and is no longer "the worst". Immediately, there will be a new "worst". Is the CEO of than new low ranker the next target? Now model this situation across other industries.

Brainless, soulless psychopaths do not serve logic, morality, nor society's interests. They serve their own bloodlust. Which can manifest in any number of ways, but sometimes it manifests in actual murder.

Stop being persuaded by their nonsense.

This is a crazy thread to have on HN. It's widely supportive of domestic terrorism and murder, seeks to perpetuate support for it, and the Mods should take it down. It's shameful, horrific shit and HN should be fully embarrassed to host it.

>Surely he bears some responsibility for making UHC the worst to deal with and the having the highest rejection rate?

If so, and barring subjectivity and narrative, then not responsibility with a penalty of death. Very obviously.

>Why would the media push a narrative against any executive if it wasn't already part of the zeitgeist? The media has consistently exhibited strong class solidarity in my experience.

Extrajudicial murder and domestic terrorism are part of the zeitgeist of most people? This is your claim?

This is some kind of new standard for a stupid statement. Aside from you being wrong in more than one aspect, I'm not going to debate your sense of media class loyalty. Which you are wrong about in a multifaceted manner.

The fact is that they are pushing the narrative. It's in black and white.

>I'm sure you are aware that doctors are not a monolith. Gp is not making things up: I'll second them with the less-than-sorrowful response elicited by the news of the CEOs demise among administrative staff in my circles (who know how the industry works and what role is performs)

I didn't say that they were. But they are largely, monolithically not insane, not murderer adjacent, and not domestic terrorist adjacent.

Your appeal to authority stories are either total bs or aberrations full of people that should probably be surveilled by law enforcement.

>Gee, I wonder if the public discontent the media and politicians tapped into in 2020 has abated or gotten worse since. It appears you refuse to acknowledge that a huge fraction of the population is unhappy with the status quo across the world (see number of governments voted out). That America has a populist president-elect isn't surprising

Trump supporters are not remotely supportive of this, barring fringe crazies and false identities.

The media didn't "tap into" anything in 2020. They wound-up a vast quasi-criminal underclass and organized domestic terrorists for nine months, and over thirty murders of innocents, running up to an election for a candidate that they were on a war-footing against for the four years prior.

They gave tacit and even direct permission to riot, and political cover for the riots, which is all that these criminals need in any given timeframe to carry out domestic terrorism and extrajudicial murders.

Now they're at it again, right after another election.

People who sympathize with this type of thing are, at the least, domestic terrorism adjacent. If not directly supportive.

You should be monitored.

I'm not, and doctors are plenty sympathetic because most are plenty normal. You and your supposed friend are objectively deranged.

>From whom?

Everyone who doesn't sympathize with violent political extremism.

In other words everyone who isn't a bot, isn't on any number of watchlists, isn't terminally online, isn't a drug addled crazy, or isn't one of the media that exists to stir them up for political purpose.

I'm fine with downvoting of this and electronically documenting your disagreement. Let's sincerely get to -200 dislikes, for the record.

Forgetting that we just leapt over the fact that the conditions of this planet are the only-evidence for the genesis of Life, and went straight to evolution, and while you logic is sound in theory, I'd again point to the probable fact that the necessary conditions for Life are massively underestimated.

Perhaps mostly in terms of genesis, but also sustainability and even given theoretical evolutionary differences for hypothetical aliens.

But genesis is really the only discussion that matters. Which is also very true for those that believe that there is a good possibility for alien Life.

The math is beyond me to do, but I once got into a conversation with Claude that sought to find the probable distance of the nearest exoplanet that has possible Earth like conditions matching only a couple of additional factors that aren't commonly considered. Whereas I have dozens more. Claude's estimation was that the nearest such planet would be over two million light years away.

Another conversation sought to understand the probability of an exact replica of this solar system somewhere else in the Universe. That probability is zero.

And yet nuclear reactors are on Earth. Again, people underestimate the factors involved. Have these organisms been shown to derive from an alien taxonomy?

> just what happens

It's not "just what happens". That's a politically opportunistic narrative that seeks to incite violence and murder.

No one knows why the CEO was killed.

None of this type of reasoning justifies or begins to explain the murder even if this were the reason in the shooter's head. Morals aside, it's nonsensical reasoning in total.

You're justifying and providing propaganda support for domestic terrorism in the United States.

There are masses of Leftists on X. Recently all seemingly intent on placing themselves on all manner of watchlist via psychotically celebrating and supporting the murder of a CEO, utilizing the logic of people with actual brain damage.

I'm sure that Bluesky was having a normal one!

>I simply pointed out that the correlation you pointed out may not be causal, and asked whether the intervention you propose has been shown to be effective.

>It sounds like the answer is 'no'.

I answered your question, and the answer was not "no".

You're putting words in my mouth. Nice decorum. Is that your method of creating an illusion of making a point?

Ignoring my general reluctance to play fetch as a matter of debating someone that has no subject matter expertise.

I said that your request asks for overly specific variables that are more than covered by orthodox child development research and practice.

Have you heard children making up songs, stories, and narratives while playing? Can illiterate parents tell stories independent of reading? Can they do it while using the pictures in the child's book?

The fault that invalidates your variable is that children will independently pick up books, regardless of parents. What they tend to do with those books, pre-literacy, are the building blocks of later literacy. Additionally, this process can be helped if the child incidentally happens to see literacy modeled on TV for example.

Your question is roughly parallel to asking a doctor to prove that having nutritious food in a house is healthy for a child, even if the parents themselves choose personal malnourishment.

If there is a chance that the child will reach out and put the better food in their mouth, then it is worth it. Double so if the parent comes to understand that the child enjoys the better food, and so begins looking to feed them with it. This is precisely what happens in child development with books and stories. Reading the words on the page isn't even required for many years. Better?

Yours is a nonsense request that comes from a place of either bottom-barrel debate tactics or a weird level of ignorance that doesn't deserve anyone's time aside from the expert assuring you that you're wrong.

I have a Master of Science in a child development domain as well as a Bachelor of Science in Communication Disorders. I'm assuring you that you are wrong. If you do not believe me, then consult a textbook or google scholar. Assuming that you'd know what you'd need to read across the domain.

>Giving books to illiterate parents is not going to result in stories being read to children.

I prior explained why this is wrong.

Those aren't remotely comparable platforms.

There isn't anything that currently exists to "pick up the crown" which itself doesn't identify in-full as a reaction to X.

There's nothing in the human social-sphere that has become dominant by defining itself as a reaction to something else.

That's first assuming that it'd overcome the second-to-market popularity issue.