thelock85

$100M and $29B are completely different things, too.

Edit: not to mention, donating $100M for first rights to pay your own billions for a potentially-emerging for profit is a morally dubious agreement wrt nonprofit management

Raheem.ai is building the PATCH network as an alternative dispatch system for community crisis responders to show up instead of having to call the police for non-criminal situations. They started with trying to build better complaint systems to support data-driven reform but pivoted toward building an alternative after failing to get buy-in from civic institutions.

It’s a bandaid solution for the UK to maintain growth sans environmental consequences.

Maybe that’s okay if North Africans own the means of production and transmission giving them the ability to turn those consequences into opportunities elsewhere.

Appreciate the enthusiasm and I’m all for trying. Still don’t think it’s pragmatic.

> don’t give the teachers the test questions beforehand

This is already the case, except for all of the practice questions that students are drilled over weeks before the actual test. Teachers simply could apply the test-taking strategies in real-time more efficiently than students to arrive at and share the answer.

Honestly I believe most teachers have too much integrity and we are solving for edge cases (per earlier comment about Tennessee experiment). Nonetheless all of these tactics are too naive for fed/state/local systems chock full of perverse incentives.

> It’ll give the teachers a way to make more money, making teaching more attractive

A few seconds of thought: “give the proposed money to teachers upfront.”

Why should there be more hoops to jump through towards a sustainable career in one of the toughest jobs? Why give Big Publishers (assessment, implementation and rubric developers) even more influence over perceived teacher quality than say parents, or everyday taxpayers who would foot the bill?

I’m simply pointing out that it’s not obvious how to implement teachers proctoring other classrooms’ exams in order to prevent the home room teacher from giving out answers for financial benefit. It’s not pragmatic when principals, guidance counselors, other-subject teachers and permanent subs are shoring up massive shortages across the country.

If someone wants to try then go for it. But there are a lot of other well-researched interventions that are hard to implement in classrooms for similar pragmatic reasons. If we are going to ignore facts on the ground, then those would be the obvious ones to me.

> What’s there to lose?

Federal, state and local tax dollars that school principals probably have a better idea on how to spend.

I’m not sure how this is obvious when there is a teacher shortage almost everywhere. I’d be willing to bet that more often than not students’ exam proctor is not their everyday teacher.

Also while this is a solution to the symptom of perverse incentives, it is still part of a bandaid approach. Low-performing schools are already spending weeks and weeks teaching to the test, which is fine for achievement but just a step above giving the answers out when it comes to rigorous teaching and learning.

> And half said “no”

A “thin majority” said yes per the article. Disclaimer: I haven’t seen the actual poll numbers.

If he was trying to make some comedic social commentary, he should’ve aimed at the poll question itself. Our society is too polarized to find the nuance and if he didn’t understand that then he was overconfident in his market value as a cartoonist.

I had a conversation about 10 years ago with a high-ranking DoEd official in Obama’s administration who was gushing over 2 sigma as a strategic framing for public education. Now this person is a very influential funder in edtech and ed reform. I think their heart is in the right place but it’s kinda crazy how no one above the school principal level is actively building strategy or executing tactics to address the basics of a good learning disposition: sleep, nutrition, safety, etc. By the time the robo-tutor is perfected, normalized trauma is going to make it useless for most school kids.

I think this is a valid concern for pro, semi-pro, collegiate and competitive recreational players. Not so sure for the millions of other players who play with crappy, uneven, knotted, too rough/smooth “ordinary” balls everyday. Of course that doesn’t mean there is a market for it.

The defensive changes are a bit over-stated in my opinion. Sure there is no hand checking, arm barring or really hard fouls (that are not flagrant) but there is zone defense. So when you get by your defender, there can easily be 2-3 guys already waiting for you. Whereas before, there were 2-3 guys rotating over to try to meet you at the rim. Schematically it seems that scoring is as easy/hard as it ever was even if the tactics have evolved.

Berlin Wall.

For this exact reason, I feel like education systems and curriculum providers (teachers are just point of contact from a requirements perspective) should develop much more complex essay prompts and invite students to use AI tools in crafting their responses.

Then it’s less about the predetermined structure (5 paragraphs) and limited set of acceptable reasoning (whatever is on the rubric), and more about using creative and critical thinking to form novel and interesting perspectives.

I feel like this is what a lot of universities and companies currently claim they want from HS and college grads.

As a 30+ year rap fan, I’d wager that the vast majority of published rap music does not center around these things. You might consider quitting mass media which shoves this type of rap into every production. Or you could dive into hip-hop to discover deeper messages that absolutely touches on these subjects in a way that is educational and instructive about how drugs, misogyny, policing, etc. are hurting communities. You definitely will never hear that on the radio, save a few exceptional artists who can create and distribute whatever they please.

Even the rappers who do project this lifestyle —whether to be authentic or to mimic what’s profitable— are cutting back out of fear of catching RICO charges.

Do the majority of MacBook Air users or customers need them?

Though it feels wasteful (making assumptions about the use-cases) I’m guessing grade school kids need them for the same reasons or non-reasons as mostly everyone else.

That these are coming from a PTO fundraiser and not a tax-funded budget makes it okay in my book (setting aside the reality that other kids might attend schools with much less productive PTOs —a problem I think for a public system).

At the price point and unique function, the first thing I compared these to are Yeezys, Balenciaga sneakers, and rare Jordan colorways. I think if that if the sneaker status culture accepts these (not saying they will) then the company will have a real chance at breaking into the consumer shoe market (not sure that's their goal?).

Alternatively, I'm wondering who's walking around all day in their job function and if there is some type of ROI on equipping them with shoes like these.

I’m not qualified to say one way or the other what the majority thinks since I haven’t travelled the country talking football. But I was certainly surprised that it’s not a forgone conclusion, especially for young people who think other star players have accomplished more in the Brasileirão.

Just spent a month in Rio and a friend brought this up when we were discussing Pele’s legacy (right when he was rumored to be in hospice).

I also learned that a lot of Brazilians (at least in Rio) are bigger fans of their local/favorite club team than the national team so many who aren’t Santos fans don’t consider him the greatest (even though they obviously loved him).

That’s fair. I guess I would think of Twitter echo chambers —full of bots & coordinated algorithm manipulators— as fringe in comparison to what most liberal-minded people I know care about. The predictable response online isn’t as prevalent in-person in my experiences. But to each their own.

Extending your comparison, do you believe the conservative activists and organizers of the 50s and 60s knew of the FBI’s campaign against MLK and others, but were perfectly okay because it served their political interests? Because it seems that you are saying liberal activists and organizers of today are co-signing the FBI’s psychops for political gain. If true that seems fringe, not mainstream but I could be wrong.

Also from a political organizing perspective, it’s advantageous for anyone critical of the FBI to talk about their actions of the past, as a way to bring more attention to what they are doing today. A partisan argument does the exact opposite.

I haven’t read everything but from what has been summarized by Weiss, Taibbi, et al, they just seem like primary documentation to things that were reported on at the time. I guess who exactly took which position around various decisions is new information.

That being said, NPR, BBC, WaPo, Fox News, and WSJ have covered latest revelations in the past 24 hours from this post.

> unintrusive live chat that I chose to enable.

After living in South America for a stint, I have an entirely new appreciation for WhatsApp for desktop and sites that include one-click integration.

I don't agree but I think it's fair to say standardized tests are a very mediocre solution for measuring students' capacity for academic work at any institution that requires them, and few universities have the resources to develop and implement better admissions procedures and entrance exams that are more reflective of their institutional values on their own. It's much easier just to get on board the College Board gravy train.

My two cents are standardized tests greatly reduce the function of MS/HS education. They are tied to school funding, teacher effectiveness, local/regional reputation and create a trickle down effect from SAT/ACT > PSAT > state-level tests so that the worst-served students are practicing multiple choice and boilerplate prompts from February to May every year. And these students hardly even go to college if they graduate, so that's time that could have been spent exploring trades, developing life skills (civics, taxes), understanding how to cope with any learning differences, etc.

Then there's the fact that a student can be taught to bump their score past a nominal requirement, gain admission, take out loans and never graduate. Not necessarily the fault of the test but part of the overall complex.

> The normalization of the hating of the other sex. Or the other political half. Or an entire race. Or an entire class.

If federal, state and local legislation or exclusive constitutional rights qualify as normalization, then we've been here before in the US... on several occasions.

> The sheer volume of it.

%100 agree. The difference between now and all the other times is that it's hard to escape it if you want to function in society-at-large. But I'd add that an obsession with growth is also key to the deleterious effects of social media.

Amazing how a sitting president can have an opponent 3.75 years before the next cycle, unless you mean Pelosi and Schumer similar to how Obama had McConnell. Of course Trump had a lot of opposition within various levels of government but that’s also not a new phenomenon, just one he played up by constantly talking about it as a means to working through it. Arguably if he’d just shut up, he’d have given up his biggest political strength and more co-opted by the corporate deep state.

And then there is the massive PPP wealth transfer he oversaw, both to criminals (not necessarily his fault, just his responsibility) and via the US Treasury (definitely on him). But these things are also nothing new compared to other recent POTUSes except for the most powerful playing constant victim.

I grew up in Texas smoking briskets and practicing at targets in family cookouts. Now I’m plant-based living in California and my three guns are collecting dust in my mom’s closet. To each their own, but I don’t see how culturally or logically either lifestyle would lead me to put a chip in my brain… though I’m sure a lot of people will when/if neuralink is viable, desirable and affordable, regardless of their habits and beliefs.

Couldn’t agree more. The quest for self-driving cars seems to be a capitalistic endeavor to offer the convenience of chilling in your car, and platform for all the services one could consume in the time they’d otherwise be driving.

If safety was the first principle, then traffic science and urban planning would lead the way until systems are simple enough for self driving cars to take over. It doesn’t seem we are in the place (in the US) where this type of private-public collaboration can take place at meaningful scale.

I’m not knocking all of the brilliant work that has been done but peddling self-driving cars for safety (not saying OP is doing that) just seems like a version of “making the world better (to be rich).”

So interesting to see if this will affect politics since midterms have passed. At least at the moment I don’t think free speech (esp via Twitter) is a priority over guns, crime, economy and reproductive rights for the average voter, or that any candidates want to seriously hold that mantle. I wonder if and how that will change going into the next election cycle.

Can anyone here provide some ideas of sensible regulation on this issue (or point to someone else talking about it)?

IANAL or even novice on antitrust issues but seems Apple would just find another way to make up the slack if App Store (iOS/Android/other) fees were regulated.

As a good friend of mine likes to say about DNC vs GOP, it's "steak or fish" with Android and iOS (you can choose which is which). They take up too much space for anyone else to fundamentally reimagine and reintroduce an app ecosystem (no disrespect to PWAs and the like). I feel regulation would ultimately hurt developers and consumers more, at least in the medium to long-term, but I'm open to forming a new opinion.

Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell really challenged my political ideology in my mid-20s. I left unsatisfied or in disagreement with a lot of it, but it was the first time I could clearly apply conservative ideals to my social justice beliefs. Most importantly, it helped me sniff out all of the BS in our (U.S.) sociopolitical system, and subsequently not have my emotions co-opted by the us vs. them culture wars.

I couldn’t finish The Righteous Mind (too dry) but Moral Foundations Theory (and the examples in the book) has made a profound impact on my understanding of perspectives I disagree with, and generally made me much more empathetic and inquisitive when I encounter such perspectives. Really powerful stuff.