the article says london, and they parent comment says "the centre".
3,609 karma · joined January 25, 2017
It's actually worse than this, students have a much easier time learning to program, which they have mostly never done before, than to perform even the simplest identical reasoning in the context of mathematics.
I am forced to come to the conclusion that school is so bad that it is harmful to education. This strikes me as something to consider before worrying about whether children are attending.
This is, I am assured, the basic right wing agenda coming to fruition. Make (public) schools so bad that people start thinking of them as a waste of money, but the actual work that has gone into making them terrible has been bipartisan.
Bad teachers need to be able to be fired, and schools need to compete for enrollment, rather than some secondary measure of performance.
6) Regular maintenance is often more expensive than repairing the car on failure, or buying a new car, and when maintenance predicta that a part is going to fail, the solution is still to replace it
In fact, a grifter prefers their shills to be defending them in good faith. The basic currency of a con is confidence. This is easier to wield if you don't have to pretend.
Unfortunately for moderation efforts, the test for whether or not someone is unwittingly repeating PR is not easy to moderate, or, by extension, automate the moderation of. But it is a problem of equal importance to the "bad faith" shills because the effect on the conversation is somewhere between identical and worse.
If theres no way to accuse someone of uncritically repeating the lies of, say, Apple, then you will select for people in your conversations who are unwittingly repeating the lies of Apple.
Having too large a group of people know you is terrible for your ability to reinvent yourself as needed. You can't change who you are or even change your mind if your previous identity is recorded and attached to you. People need to be forgotten, and this is especially true of children.
Let's say that the distinction here is how we establish that an answer is correct. A proof is correct if it typechecks (no really). A computation is correct if it faithfully executes the algorithm.
This distinction is more than a little artificial, but in practice it matters a lot.
They also wield the authority of the federal government, which is the authority of the people, represented more or less collectively, and which is operating under the principle of maximizing social utility, in contrast to the insurance company in your metaphor which is trying to maximize profits for its shareholders.
This argument that you are using maybe didn't come directly from a corporate PR firm, but it sounds like one.
For any positive integers n, k, m, such that m ≥ n, one can find N with the following property: if we color each of the n-element subsets of S = {1, 2, 3,..., N} with one of k colors, then we can find a subset Y of S with at least m elements, such that all n-element subsets of Y have the same color, and the number of elements of Y is at least the smallest element of Y.
This function is outside the reach of Peano arithmetic.
>Ultimately, the term fractal dimension became the phrase with which Mandelbrot himself became most comfortable with respect to encapsulating the meaning of the word fractal, a term he created. After several iterations over years, Mandelbrot settled on this use of the language: "...to use fractal without a pedantic definition, to use fractal dimension as a generic term applicable to all the variants."
The king, in an attempt to find this well, issues a proclamation, that whoever finds this place to drill will own all of the water that comes out of it for the rest of their lives.
Most of the desert dwellers recognize that searching for this well wont keep them fed in the meantime, so an enterprising young duke offers a different deal. He says that he will pay people to search for the well, in exchange for the rights to the water if they find it.
Many desert dwellers take him up on this deal, its a good job, and it pays well enough to subsidize the searching.
When the well is finally found, the king grudgingly hands the duke the rights to the water, and with the wealth that the exorbitant prices he charges for water brings him, the duke eventually owns the whole desert and deposes the king.
That's it, thats the whole story. If you thought it was stupid, and that the king should have done things differently, we are in agreement.
Valve charges 30%. I personally believe that this is an evil amount. The fact that the market bears it is, by my estimation, strong evidence of their monopoly position. The same argument holds for any "platform" charging that much more than the the cost of hosting.
Calling your opposition terminally negative is pretty shitty.
Sure people can top up their cars overnight, but what about people who street park? Charging a tesla battery to full overnight (16hr) is still 5kW.
On the other hand in the world where gas is very expensive, and you have a PHEV, you can pkug in most of the time and solve almost all of your gasoline demand, while still being able to fill your car at 20MW in critical situations
Plug in hybrids are an extremely sensible intermediate step, and perhaps the only feasible endpoint. They solve almost every problem that electric vehicles solve, and also almost every problem that electric vehicles have.
For an example in the other direction, wikipedia should ban the word inflammable. Its original meaning, which some authors will definitely prefer (if they are pedants), is entirely the opposite meaning of the colloquial meaning. Should wikipedia pick a meaning for the word, which people are free to ignore, or just outright ban it? (except in etymology wikipedia, where it is an example of a word, rather than part of the explanatory grammar)