4 ms·

Not really, given that Democrats control California 100% and attacks on early Algebra were the result. Neither major party is the coalition I'm talking about.

Not really, given that Democrats control California 100% and attacks on early Algebra were the result. Neither major party is the coalition I'm talking about. It doesn't exist yet. But I can dream.

xxpor 5y ago
It's more nuanced than that. America has the issue where there's 2 big tent parties, but there's a million little fiefdoms that are easily captured by radicals. Things like local school boards, where people just don't have the time and energy to pay attention to every detail. Last November, my ballot up here in Seattle had 25+ things to vote on. In California it's probably even worse. I get why the 2 party system evolved at the federal level, but there's no reason why we couldn't have more parties at the local level. That's exactly what happens in Canada, for example.
- jamie_ca 5y ago
  Canadian - I haven't seen any evidence of party affiliation by candidates for City Council/School Board level, in either BC or Ontario.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    The current mayor of Vancouver is officially independent (although he was NDP while an MP), but the previous mayor was Vision Vancouver. Here's a list of the city counselors and their parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_City_Council#2018%E2%80%93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_City_Council#2018%E2...
- civilized 5y ago
  I appreciate that, but massive, rich cities like San Francisco are crown jewels and bastions of Democratic power. Are we to believe that what happens in these cities is just the equivalent of some school board declaring pi = 3 in Podunk Nowhere? I think it's pretty representative of what the vanguard of the party wants. And it will continue to be unless the rank and file demand better.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Ehhhhhhh I don't really agree with that. It represents what the people who care about that particular issue want. Saying it's the vanguard of the party, or that US parties can even have vanguards, is kind of silly. They're just too large and have a diversity of opinions.
    - civilized 5y ago
      "It's not what the party wants, it's what the people who care about this issue within the party want" seems like a distinction without a difference.
      - xxpor 5y ago
        It means that how things become salient is very different. For example, all of this school board nonsense. It appears they've started to cross the line, and people have begun to notice. And now there's pressure to move more toward the average position of the party. It's quite different from these more centralized states with party platforms that actually mean something.
        civilized 5y ago
        I hope you're right. In the meantime voters are going Republican in VA and NJ.
zeruch 5y ago
"Not really, given that Democrats control California 100% and attacks on early Algebra were the result" This is too absurd to even be a non-sequitur. And frankly, if Dems control this state "100%" then one has to ask why? Why has the GOP given up so much ground (remember, California has only sent two people to the nations highest office/POTUS, Nixon and Reagan, who were both Republicans. Historically a GOP that occupied up to 40+ percent of registered voters is now less than 25%, most of them going to Independent not Dem. This was in my lifetime, and I was GOP for a long time. They lost ground due to the Dems being the least stupid and unhinged of the two major parties. Not because the Dems are great, just less incoherent and insanely clownish assjockeys.
- civilized 5y ago
  > This is too absurd to even be a non-sequitur. Hmm! Let's review the logic... 1. Insane things are happening to math education in California 2. Democrats control California 100% 3. Therefore, Democrats are causing the insane things in California 4. Therefore, Democrats are not always and everywhere the coalition to restore sanity, but sometimes make things more insane The logic seems pretty basic and sound to me. I suspect even children will be able to follow it, provided California Democrats allow them to take logic.
  - zeruch 5y ago
    1. maybe 2. see my previous answer 3. post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense 4. "The logic seems pretty basic and sound to me" and to the rest of us who actually grasp logic, it's about as structurally sound as a dropped lasagna.
    - civilized 5y ago
      > 3. post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense Ha ha ha. No. The CMF is a product of the CA DoE, an organization ultimately led by either elected officials (the state superintendent) or appointees of elected officials (the state board, appointed by the Governor). And since it's education in California, I don't even have to look to know that those leaders are 100% Democrats. Because Hell will freeze over before today's California lets anyone but a Democrat touch education policy. Nevertheless, I did confirm that the obvious is true with a couple Google searches. All CA School Board members were appointed by Democratic governors Brown or Newsom, and the superintendent has been a Democrat since the 90s, although the office is officially "nonpartisan" (whatever that means). Your unwillingness to follow a simple, obvious logical point doesn't make that point weak. It's uninteresting to have a "debate" with someone whose primary tactic is disingenuous ignorance in the service of protecting a favored in-group, so I'll stop here. Bye.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
The algebra thing is way more complicated than “attacks on algebra” if you weren’t already aware. They’re talking about integrated math where students all learn the same concepts at the same time, but students that can handle more complex work still get it. Some math concepts will actually be introduced earlier than they were previously, and the curriculum is shifting to include more applied math like statistics rather than calculus being the end-all. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-21/why-california-math-plan-riling-up-parents-teachers?_amp=true https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-21/why-cali...
- civilized 5y ago
  Not what I'm hearing. https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6146 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6146
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    Right that post is some acceptance, some feedback, and some concern… it’s not traipsing around the comments repeating the trollish phrase “attack on algebra”
    - civilized 5y ago
      I wonder why you've repeatedly misquoted me in a deceptive fashion? Very interesting behavior. Does that belong on Hacker News?
      - micromacrofoot 5y ago
        you said “attacks on early Algebra” the difference is immaterial to my point
        civilized 5y ago
        A bit late now, don't you think? Why don't you go edit your earlier misquotes and change the deceptive implications of the misquotes as well? I never claimed anyone was attacking "algebra", just the ability of all students to easily take it "early" (i.e. before high school), as has been traditionally allowed. Feel free to apologize and change my mind, but I have you flagged as a liar and the conversation will proceed accordingly.

Not really, given that Democrats control California 100% and attacks on early Algebra were the result. Neither major party is the coalition I'm talking about. It doesn't exist yet. But I can dream.

xxpor 5y ago

It's more nuanced than that. America has the issue where there's 2 big tent parties, but there's a million little fiefdoms that are easily captured by radicals. Things like local school boards, where people just don't have the time and energy to pay attention to every detail. Last November, my ballot up here in Seattle had 25+ things to vote on. In California it's probably even worse. I get why the 2 party system evolved at the federal level, but there's no reason why we couldn't have more parties at the local level. That's exactly what happens in Canada, for example.

jamie_ca 5y ago
Canadian - I haven't seen any evidence of party affiliation by candidates for City Council/School Board level, in either BC or Ontario.
- xxpor 5y ago
  The current mayor of Vancouver is officially independent (although he was NDP while an MP), but the previous mayor was Vision Vancouver. Here's a list of the city counselors and their parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_City_Council#2018%E2%80%93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_City_Council#2018%E2...
civilized 5y ago
I appreciate that, but massive, rich cities like San Francisco are crown jewels and bastions of Democratic power. Are we to believe that what happens in these cities is just the equivalent of some school board declaring pi = 3 in Podunk Nowhere? I think it's pretty representative of what the vanguard of the party wants. And it will continue to be unless the rank and file demand better.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Ehhhhhhh I don't really agree with that. It represents what the people who care about that particular issue want. Saying it's the vanguard of the party, or that US parties can even have vanguards, is kind of silly. They're just too large and have a diversity of opinions.
  - civilized 5y ago
    "It's not what the party wants, it's what the people who care about this issue within the party want" seems like a distinction without a difference.
    - xxpor 5y ago
      It means that how things become salient is very different. For example, all of this school board nonsense. It appears they've started to cross the line, and people have begun to notice. And now there's pressure to move more toward the average position of the party. It's quite different from these more centralized states with party platforms that actually mean something.
      - civilized 5y ago
        I hope you're right. In the meantime voters are going Republican in VA and NJ.

zeruch 5y ago

"Not really, given that Democrats control California 100% and attacks on early Algebra were the result" This is too absurd to even be a non-sequitur. And frankly, if Dems control this state "100%" then one has to ask why? Why has the GOP given up so much ground (remember, California has only sent two people to the nations highest office/POTUS, Nixon and Reagan, who were both Republicans. Historically a GOP that occupied up to 40+ percent of registered voters is now less than 25%, most of them going to Independent not Dem. This was in my lifetime, and I was GOP for a long time. They lost ground due to the Dems being the least stupid and unhinged of the two major parties. Not because the Dems are great, just less incoherent and insanely clownish assjockeys.

civilized 5y ago
> This is too absurd to even be a non-sequitur. Hmm! Let's review the logic... 1. Insane things are happening to math education in California 2. Democrats control California 100% 3. Therefore, Democrats are causing the insane things in California 4. Therefore, Democrats are not always and everywhere the coalition to restore sanity, but sometimes make things more insane The logic seems pretty basic and sound to me. I suspect even children will be able to follow it, provided California Democrats allow them to take logic.
- zeruch 5y ago
  1. maybe 2. see my previous answer 3. post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense 4. "The logic seems pretty basic and sound to me" and to the rest of us who actually grasp logic, it's about as structurally sound as a dropped lasagna.
  - civilized 5y ago
    > 3. post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense Ha ha ha. No. The CMF is a product of the CA DoE, an organization ultimately led by either elected officials (the state superintendent) or appointees of elected officials (the state board, appointed by the Governor). And since it's education in California, I don't even have to look to know that those leaders are 100% Democrats. Because Hell will freeze over before today's California lets anyone but a Democrat touch education policy. Nevertheless, I did confirm that the obvious is true with a couple Google searches. All CA School Board members were appointed by Democratic governors Brown or Newsom, and the superintendent has been a Democrat since the 90s, although the office is officially "nonpartisan" (whatever that means). Your unwillingness to follow a simple, obvious logical point doesn't make that point weak. It's uninteresting to have a "debate" with someone whose primary tactic is disingenuous ignorance in the service of protecting a favored in-group, so I'll stop here. Bye.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

The algebra thing is way more complicated than “attacks on algebra” if you weren’t already aware. They’re talking about integrated math where students all learn the same concepts at the same time, but students that can handle more complex work still get it. Some math concepts will actually be introduced earlier than they were previously, and the curriculum is shifting to include more applied math like statistics rather than calculus being the end-all. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-21/why-california-math-plan-riling-up-parents-teachers?_amp=true https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-21/why-cali...

civilized 5y ago
Not what I'm hearing. https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6146 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6146
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  Right that post is some acceptance, some feedback, and some concern… it’s not traipsing around the comments repeating the trollish phrase “attack on algebra”
  - civilized 5y ago
    I wonder why you've repeatedly misquoted me in a deceptive fashion? Very interesting behavior. Does that belong on Hacker News?
    - micromacrofoot 5y ago
      you said “attacks on early Algebra” the difference is immaterial to my point
      - civilized 5y ago
        A bit late now, don't you think? Why don't you go edit your earlier misquotes and change the deceptive implications of the misquotes as well? I never claimed anyone was attacking "algebra", just the ability of all students to easily take it "early" (i.e. before high school), as has been traditionally allowed. Feel free to apologize and change my mind, but I have you flagged as a liar and the conversation will proceed accordingly.