The assumption with that statement is that there is a net amount of money to be dispensed, and either a few highly compensated employees get those jobs or many low wage employees.

But the very fact of wage theft indicates that the employers want to keep more money in their hands, and distribute less of it. So it really just amounts to small numbers of underpaid jobs.

The article itself reads like guerilla advertising so I'm inclined not to take it at face value.

I almost never use the desktop app, I have maybe 2-3 conversations over the last year that have nothing to do with my job. Opus (and now Fable) genuinely do seem to "understand" what you intend based off what you're explaining a lot better than other models I've tried.

Gemini gets close in some cases, but it falls over in the actual implementation sometimes. I haven't tried Kimi yet but MiMo isn't too shabby either.

These terms seem to be updated at-will, so I'll take that with a grain of salt however.

But to the original point I was trying to make, troubled kids don't automatically mean they don't deserve education or we should allow them to fail out or give them the option of leaving primary or secondary education. We should really be making every attempt at figuring out ways to make them stay in school, given how stark the difference in outcomes are.

The phrase "real learning" is hard to define but I think I understand what you mean here, ie critical thinking. But this is only possible on the back of foundational literacy possible by years of primary education.

> Problem is when one mixes kids who don’t want to be there with one’s that do, they all suffer.

Kids that "don't want to be in school" need to be treated with care and shown the value of education. Not ejected out of the system to protect teachers. The kids might not want to be there for a variety of reasons, but if you've ever interacted with kids informally you'll know they are typically curious and eager to learn about the world around them.

And if they aren't the reasons need to be understood and the kids would ideally be provided the care they need, although there reality is far more complex.

This exception does not invalidate the basic premise of primary education, the benefits of which can be seen globally in pretty much every context.

But primary education needs to be a requirement for every child. Coming from a country with a large illiterate population, it's easy to see how hard their lives are compared to folks with an education but similar socio-economic backgrounds.

Now obviously implementing universal primary education and the details can be debated and need to be context specific.

Often it forces a clarity that only comes from writing ideas down in a way that's necessary to explain your results to your peers.

The process itself sucks, but the outcomes are often quite satisfying and rewarding.

For say something like the state legislature race in a state, they count up all the seats they have won in each district, and whichever party has won the most seats wins the race. Voters are therefore put in buckets (districts) and their votes are counted in aggregate.

This allows a process called "gerrymandering" to redraw district boundaries arbitrarily. So if there is say a democratic-party majority voting bloc in a particular area, I can redraw the surrounding districts to split that geographic area into many parts, so their votes get split across multiple districts and hence "diluted".

The voting rights act asserted this is a form of voter suppression. Specifically related to black voter suppression, if a state is say 40% black by population and they have no black representatives, it warrants a closer look as to why.

I hope that wasn't too confusing of an explanation. I'm not from the US but I'm quite interested in these things.

Often supervisors/professors etc will also resist using typst because of the cognitive overhead on their already oversubscribed time. Typst has about 40 years of history to overcome and that will take a long time to do.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47917469

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

Alertness isn't the same thing as energy, which is why people who drink a lot of coffee often feel tired but "wired". The brain is alert but energy is low. Abstaining from coffee can "reset" the nervous system to an extent, but alertness and energy is largely determined by insulin levs in the body. So figuring out what works for you with diet is a much better way of getting more stable energy through the day, regardless of caffeine intake.

It so happens that when you solve for this problem, a ball bouncing against a wall, in this wave function paradigm then you end up with a non-zero probability that the ball appears on the other side of the wall.

I'm not sure if there is a deeper explanation at play here but that's how I understand it.

I agree in that sense that physics does not do well here. I actually think physics _cannot_ do well here. Physics (and the "hard" sciences more generally) are good at describing what something is, and how it interacts with things around it. We "know" by assembling individual pieces of information that form a consistent model, then declare that model to be true. When a piece of information outside of that model arises, we then have to call that model in question.

I do not "know" the Earth is spherical from direct experience. I do "know" it from other indirect means - reading, measurements, images from space and so on. I do not also think that Asimov is saying anything about how we know what we know - he just talks about how "science is wrong" is not a true statement. Science is always approximately correct, but how approximate is the question.

So perhaps I'm missing the point entirely here, but I don't understand your distinction of "instrumentalist knowledge" vs other kinds of knowledge. If you say physics cannot explain my knowledge that I enjoy watching the sunrise - then absolutely yes. That is not it's realm. In the same way that physics cannot explain the history of medieval China to me. A common issue among physicists is to assume that this is the only way to view the world, and I disagree with that. There are many systems of knowledge, and each is good at certain things. Rejecting one as the "global" system misses the richness of other kinds of knowledge building.

> From this point of view as our ability to connect experiment with outcome has increased our ability to actually say what it is we are even talking about outside of the purely instrumental has decreased since the 19th Century. Back then we though we knew that there were atoms or electrons or whatever. Light waves or photons. Now, I would argue very strenuously, we genuinely have no understanding at all of what those things are outside of a set of purely instrumental definitions which leave a lot to be desired.

I disagree with this entirely. The existence of QFT, and our knowledge of the inconsistency between say GR and the quantum realm does not negate the idea of photons and electrons as real, measurable quantities. The fact that we have GR does not negate the fact that we still use Newtonian gravity in regimes where it is sufficiently accurate.

All the new knowledge we have learned still is (and absolutely must be) consistent with our old knowledge that has been proven correct in the regimes that they were proven correct.

This is effectively what Asimov is saying (as I understand anyway) - the knowledge that the Earth is a sphere does not invalidate the assumption that the Earth is flat approximately and locally.

I would also argue that the only things we can "know" are what you call the instrumental definitions. We only know what we measure. The rest is interpretation, and self-consistent understanding.

String theory can tell me that we have several dimensions etc but until we have a way to measure and check it remains a conceptual framework to make predictions, rather than a description of how things really are.

GR is much closer to a description. It told us about the precession of mercury, it told us to account for time dilation so we can use GPS satellites. It also predicted black holes, which were conceptually consistent but it's only been in the last ~ 5 years that we have the closest thing yet to experimental verification with the Event Horizon Telescope and gravitational wave measurements. If another theory comes along and explains all of GR with a different explanation for black holes, we will need still more accurate measurements to discriminate between the two theories. Knowledge is only as accurate as we can measure.