cauch

54 ms·

481.
by cauch 3y ago
That does not make any sense: without this measure, the kids that you are trying to save from moping the floor will ... mop the floor twice. Without this measure, the kids that are not able to follow classes that needs things they cannot af
482.
by cauch 3y ago
They don't really address it: tutoring is OBVIOUS, everyone knows that tutoring works. The reason they are applying this measure is because tutoring is not doable. > We don't need to dumb down anything. We need to raise everyon
483.
by cauch 3y ago
The author says > The idea that offering children fewer educational resources through the public school system will help the poor kids catch up with rich ones, or help the Black kids catch up with the White and Asian ones, is unsupported
484.
by cauch 3y ago
> That is likely true, but what is your point? The statement I said was false and misleading was in the message that started this thread You realize the part I was quoting started with "I rarely see that here". Obviously, my se
485.
by cauch 3y ago
> I rarely see that here. What I tend to see are people who don't like the idea of nuclear power making misleading or false statements about nuclear power. (Like in the original message of this thread where the claim is made "A
486.
by cauch 3y ago
I think the comment was referring to you saying "yeah no" to a thread subject that is "Margaret Hamilton Led the NASA Software Team That Landed Astronauts on the Moon". It is funny that your answer seems to blame or mock
487.
by cauch 3y ago
> Too many hardware bugs with the FP3 that were never acknowledged by the vendor I have a FP3, and it has been my first and only Android smartphone. I now wonder if what I've experienced is the "normal Android experience"
488.
by cauch 3y ago
Not sure why you are talking about "someone who doesn't know the principles" to a message that explicitly says "Yes, managers need to have some part of their work in the trenches". I've been in meetings that we
489.
by cauch 3y ago
As I've said, I'm coding and I understood perfectly the code of the devs I was working with, and yet, what OP said correspond to what I have observed sometimes. This demonstrates that your logic "OP reaches this conclusion, s
490.
by cauch 3y ago
That sounds very presumptuous, which is a pity because your message is valuable, but the presumptuousness implies that your opinion has absolutely no value. The value in your comment is on bringing one aspect that makes the situation more &
491.
by cauch 3y ago
So I would not say "that's a manager problem": that's everyone problem, everyone needs to change their way of working and communicating. The manager, but also the person being managed (unfortunately, a common dev mentali
492.
by cauch 3y ago
I don't remember anyone behaving like that being called a conspiracy theorist. I saw a lot of people not behaving like that, spreading misinformation as if it was fact without caring about the consequences of the person they accused, b
493.
by cauch 3y ago
They have a "theory", no proof. My point is that a healthy society should not rely on "theory" to destroy other people's life, to bully them or to make societal decisions, especially if there are processes that can
494.
by cauch 3y ago
But the fact that the conspiracy is true or not is irrelevant. The problem of the "conspiracy theory" is that it is a witch trial: a group of people have absolutely no proof what-so-ever, they just "want to believe they are r
495.
by cauch 3y ago
It is perfectly normal that people are anxious. I am myself anxious. But the problem, and what makes those people that the CNN article talk about despicable, is that those anxious people are attacking innocent scientists just because they c
496.
by cauch 3y ago
> No, those other devices are not attached to your hip every waking moment, they don't interrupt your regular thought patterns and daily activities, they don't track your movements through physical space and people you physical
497.
by cauch 3y ago
There are TONS of things that changed in the society around 2012. (for example, a specific and brand new phase in globalisation, in climate change crisis, in global loss of trust in the media, in disillusion in the capacity of changing elem
498.
by cauch 3y ago
I'm 100% in favor in banning smartphone during school hours. The big danger is to spread the incorrect conclusion "it's smartphone's fault". For example, if it is social media, then, we need to change social media,
499.
by cauch 3y ago
> Social media is a reason. Exactly. Social media is accessible through smartphones, laptop, any connected device. If the reason is social media, then talking about smartphones in itself is really a mistake: they would not have existed,
500.
by cauch 3y ago
> Sure, this is possible, but there have always been poor parents, yet these changes to mental health have only started with adoption of the smartphone. They started with adoption of the smartphone, which also corresponds with a specific
501.
by cauch 3y ago
No, you cannot conclude that. You say "surely existed before the introduction of smartphones", but you are also saying that the smartphones have introduced something that did not existed. If it's the case, it means that &quot
502.
by cauch 3y ago
> But isn't this equally admitting smartphones are the issue? Not really: a confounding effect means that there is a cause X that leads to two things: using more smartphone, and depression. If you ban the smartphone, you don't
503.
by cauch 3y ago
> It's not one society, it's every society in which smartphones and social media are available. It's simply implausible to suggest that every society on Earth nearly simultaneously became more anxiogenic for no common reas
504.
by cauch 3y ago
And these arguments have been heard, but they are still not convincing. I don't know what is the reality, maybe indeed the smartphone is causing the problem. But the author is just jumping to the conclusion without proper scientificall
505.
by cauch 3y ago
("identically possible" as: as legitimately grounded. But of course, if you are convinced that people who are not convinced by your argument can only be dishonest, of course, for you, they are not identically possible) > becaus
506.
by cauch 3y ago
yes, exactly
507.
by cauch 3y ago
Yep, the population that receive a smartphone early have fundamentally different parents than the population that receive a smartphone late. So the study is biased: they cannot conclude it's due to the smartphone and not the family env
508.
by cauch 3y ago
I think that the problem is that for some, the obvious Occam's razor is that "smartphone is the cause. obviously" and for some "smartphone is a confounding effect of a deeper cause, obviously". Because it is like th
509.
by cauch 3y ago
My rebuttal would be: it is not impossible to attribute causality, and THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Right now, there are two identically possible situations (well, even more, but you get the jest): A) smartphone -> depression B) depression ->
510.
by cauch 3y ago
If it's a precautionary principle, it should be called so. One should say "We don't know if smartphone is the cause, but by precaution, ...", which is clearly not the conclusion provided here. You cannot say: I don'

More ›