On one hand it will be great to read more of his work but on the other hand I will have to read the god awful reviews and overhear my friends discussing these works at parties. J.D. Salinger is society’s most unflattering mirror.
425 karma · joined May 29, 2018
Does it, though? Google used to give search results, now it gives Google Search Results™ and most navigation is dictated by what appears in social media feeds. The behemoths are able to enforce a sense of legitimacy in their own products while marginalizing any threats to their dominance. If they really can't stop a rising star that is pulling away users by squashing or copying them then it is no issue to throw some money at the problem and buy them out.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone...
Unless the context is a coding lesson, though, I agree that live coding is unnecessary and somewhat stressful to watch. It's like watching someone swallow a sword, I don't want to see it go poorly.
> This is a real payphone
> In order to make phone calls (with no coin operations needed), you will need the telephone circuit board optional product. In order to receive phone calls, you will need the Ringer + Telephone Circuit Board optional products
So it doesn't work. It really is just like a real payphone!
Most of these comments are arguing against a claim that has not been made.
GitHub now reminds you what commits you made on this day last year.
If the problem were the opposite it would also make sense to say that the data is too simple rather than too clean. That gets to what the article is saying; that all data collection is inherently biased.
This reminded me of the episode of The Office where Dwight steals Micheal's Rolodex to get information on his clients and it leads to him asking, "How's your gay son? ... Tony? The homosexual sophomore?" If you don't know someone intimately don't try to fake an intimate connection. The very next part of this quiz encouraged me to be upfront and honest instead of hiding behind excuses and managerial tricks. What if he were upfront and honest in response to the personal question and told you that his wife calls him a poor father and insults his manhood, are you ready to pivot to that subject? Can you reasonably expect him to answer that question dishonestly and if he needs to do so in order to avoid an awkward conversation then hasn't the question failed its purpose of opening an honest dialogue? What if this is a performance review and the result is somewhat negative? Is he to understand that his poor relationship with his wife had some bearing on his negative performance review? If not then why would you bring it up in that context? A relationship can thrive on one of two things: complete honesty or respectful boundaries.
Maybe I am too sensitive about personal questions but that question doesn't seem appropriate. Also, esoteric conversation starters are great. I would much rather talk about why I would want to be a sunchoke than give a generic response without actually thinking about my answer.
George W. Bush famously spoke of following his "gut" when asked about his decision process concerning foreign policy. In doing so science, research and general means of informed decision-making were dismissed as a way for an elitist to tell laborers that they're too stupid to understand his thought process. The hypocrisy is that he himself went to Yale and Harvard and clearly values higher education; he joined the same secret society at Yale to which his father and grand-father had belonged. This trend has continued to the point that lowly insults are preferred by most voters over policy discussion. This is true of both parties. (e.g. "Pocahontas", "motherfucker")
The reality is that education in and of itself is a societal equalizer. A liberal arts education was developed in the ancient world to equip people with the skills that they needed to live freely as members of a society: logical reasoning, self-expression and the ability to record your thoughts and interpret the thoughts of others. We now speak of education in terms of time commitment and expected pay-off, the massive debt considered an unavoidable nuisance. It is often after a child has selected a college or university that they consider how they will pay (or accrue debt) for it. The elites know that education is a equalizer and that is why they try so hard to frame it as a tool for the enemy of the common people. The last thing that the elites would want is commoners getting wise. When common people do see the value of education they are buried in debt to stifle their upward mobility.
To answer your question, non-college graduates should support the subsidization of higher education because nothing could do more to serve them and their interests. For the time being tough, pursuing an education may mean separating the concept of education from what we have learned to think of as an educational institution. I don't have a college degree and I don't want one (i.e. I don't want to earn one at this time) but I am convinced by the reasoning behind supporting education that has been repeated for thousands of years. In my opinion it is tantamount to supporting the advancement of human civilization and right now we desperately need a renaissance.
Unfortunately it is a matter of voting blue enough, not just blue. In some areas politicians, even Democrats, regularly relate to their constituents by bashing "East cost liberal elites" despite having degrees from Ivy League schools. If Doug Jones had said that a liberal arts education is valuable for developing into a well-rounded citizen his race would have ended then and there.