I'm not the parent comment author, but my guess is that they probably meant persuade or inspire as much if not more than coerce. Most respectful interpretation and all...
Why is it obvious that an educator should do their best to teach a student something even when they don't want to learn? Well for one, it's their job, and two... Children especially are not good judges of which knowledge and skills will benefit them later in life.
> Children especially are not good judges of which knowledge and skills will benefit them later in life.
This. If children knew what was best for them, they wouldn't need teachers or parents.
When I was in college, the courses were laid out for particular majors. Electives were few. I trusted the college that they knew what they were doing in deciding the curricula, because I sure didn't.
In broad strokes, learning leads to better life outcomes just like brushing your teeth leads to better health outcomes, or any other example you may prefer. Brushing teeth is a chore so a child won't generally pick it up all by themselves without some nudging. If you don't do the nudging you're essentially letting a child be free, yes, but also willingly letting them end up worse off when they're too young to know any better. Learning is the same.
Where did I say anything about living in the jungle?
The food choices having nothing to do with the jungle, but rather: regular, significant consumption of highly processed and most significantly sweetened foods. There were plenty of people in the world before the widespread adoption of sugar as cooking ingredient whose dental health would likely not have been improved by brushing, and they didn't live in "the jungle" but places like ... America, and Japan, and India and ... basically the entire planet.
Forget children. I regularly coerce adults - junior members of my team - to learn properly things they don't care to learn too much. Both for the benefit of the organization (society in the case of children) and for their own benefit.
I had the same experience after subscribing for crosswords around 10 years ago, but I think at that time they did let you ask nicely for cancellation via a support chat bot. I think they might have only supported this in California due to California state law.
> If I build a house on undeveloped land and the electric company needs to run lines, do I also (in a much smaller way than a data center) increase the costs for all other customers?
In some sense, sure, any time you buy something you apply some upward price pressure. Of course, whether the resulting price changes measurably depends on many things, like the scale of your purchase relative to the scale of the market, the price elasticity of demand, who the marginal buyers and producers are, etc.
What makes this argument less compelling is that “year 1 AD” also didn’t exist at the time, and this isn’t a great reason to abandon the arithmetically sane approach of zero-indexed year numbering.
The calendar was back-dated 500 or so years after Jesus, by a European guy before Europe had the concept of zero, leaving us with 1-indexed years. Then, 200 or so years after that, another guy (still lacking the concept of zero) made the even less venerable decision that the year right before 1 AD would be 1 BC.
We could just decide today that 0 came right before 1 AD and was the first year of the first century AD. Then we’d just have to shift all BC dates by 1 year in all our history books.
The upside would be that arithmetic on year labels starts working again. The downside is that there are way too many history books and no one will ever do this.
Of course, the easier way out is to just decide today that either 1) the first century began in 1 BC or 2) the first century had 1 fewer year than all the other centuries.
That ignores the actual issue here, which is the change in rules. Index funds already seek to own the entire market, and when most people chose these index funds there were rules about when newly listed stocks get purchased by the funds. And now those rules are being changed.
Index funds generally try to match the performance of the index, but most are not required to hold the same companies as the index itself does. They typically do, but managers often have choices.
Yes, most index funds don't literally intend to own the entire market for any sufficiently broad interpretation of the word "entire."
But the point is that we have notable index funds which are marketed to customers as having the intention to own segments of the market according to certain rules, and they are changing those rules with relatively short notice and for reasons that seem suspicious to many customers.
> Yes, most index funds don't literally intend to own the entire market for any sufficiently broad interpretation of the word "entire."
I mean that your index doesn't even have to own a segment of the market. Just look at eg how the Dow Jones Industrial Average is constructed. When a company has a stock split, it changes its weight in that index. That has nothing to do with 'the market'. (Stock splits have approximately no influence on your weight in the S&P500.)
Or you could have an index that captures all the stocks whose ticker starts with X minus those that start with Y plus the current temperature in Frankfort, Kentucky, in Rankine degrees.
It's a bizarre distinction, because "tool" does not imply "highly customizable" or even "repairable." In fact, even the distinction between "appliance" and "tool" is odd, since those are nearly synonymous in everyday usage, and both strongly imply a device designed for a narrow use case.
I do think sometimes the interview process can be weird as hell, but if one is to name and shame it doesn't help really, they could change their processes and even take feedback but if there's a constant record of the oddities it can turn off potential perfect fits. I've been shocked how many people will base their approach off of Glassdoor reviews from 5 years ago for example.
I think it's fair for a company to improve, plus it makes for funny posts like this!
Also I'm not sure it's such a tabboo as it is a stigma on the applicant!
It’s not just innocent ignorance of statistics. There’s also deliberate lying in mass media, both for partisan political goals and simply because sensationalism attracts eyeballs.
While Spain does sound lovely, I don’t think “having anything to do” was really in my generation/demographic’s mindset while we roamed around the neighborhood. This was small town Midwest in the 90s. We just roamed around doing nothing.
But there was a place in which to do nothing - whether it was a scrappy patch of land that's now a big-box store, or a permissive neighbour's garden who has now put up a fort knox of ring cameras, or a mall that used to tolerate kids just screwing around that now has a fleet of rent-a-cops. Third spaces aren't just trendy urban cafes, especially as a child. Having a place that feels like "your bit" is increasingly rare.
I came up in malls in the past. They did but it was also different. You could be a kid there and it was more tolerated. You weren't treated like a suspicious person by default. (Unless you were not white, or a punk. Then security tailed you the whole time.)
They are either shockingly busy, or complete ghost towns, depending on how much power the anchor stores had. A lot of malls were kept afloat by the big department stores, and those are doing bad now that those stores are on the ropes. Like, really bad, think "less than 50% occupancy of stores, air conditioning being run at a bare minimum because it's too expensive" bad. Others (notably the ones that Westfield bought after their success with Valley Fair in San Jose) focused more on the "affordable luxuries" segment, with small stores selling specialized stuff, and are doing fine.
Also you'd take your bicycle and pretend it is a motorbike, hacking stuff likw mounting a playing card to the seatstay so it hits the spoke and make revving sound when you accelerated or looking for planks and construction material to build ramps
Let's say that you have some curriculum C that you think is vital for children to learn, and you want as many children as possible to learn C.
Even ignoring ethics, it's not obvious to me that attempting to coerce all children into learning C is the best way to accomplish your goal!
reply