This is an understandable perception, but it reveals your lack of context. By and large, children in the US are educated in the public school system. Only 6% of children in the US are homeschooled. Now, there has been a relatively recent push into home schooling as a reaction to the education problems that you mentioned, but it is not the cause. I'd encourage you to spend some time researching home schooling outcomes in the US, if you're interested. (Keep in mind that the sample is mainly representative of engaged and proactive parents.)
Critical thinking requires that the sources themselves are evaluated for bias. Anecdotally, I've come across several articles for which the bulk of citations all come from one source, and that source is a heavily political "newspaper" article. This is true for topics that are hot on all sides of whatever spectrum or division they tend to land. If Wikipedia is going to be taught to be used as a tool for research, then its governance structure should be taught and critically evaluated. The bias of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation should be taken into account.
I suspect that the bulk of readers don't give a second thought to Wikipedia's Magisterium.
Yes, let's bring these back. In fact, why don't we just build Khrushchevkas and skip the whole proletarian revolution step? We can even start wearing the funny little hats with flaps and drink until we forget about freedom or dignity. We're beyond that anyway, aren't we?
With this level of wealth inequality and these seeming like a good idea, I'd say we're gearing up for a bloody good time, to say the least.
It's hard to imagine that abundant housing led to the truly adverse economic conditions in the USSR. Rather than offering a cheeky strawman perhaps you could give some real thought to alternative solutions you'd like to see?
It's rare for an app dev (of such a popular tool) to go out of their way to respond to a random forum user. Even rarer is to address every point on their list with patience and consideration.
You must be a remarkable person and I wish you nothing but success.
I'm not even able to hold a candle to Wolfram intellectually- the guy is a universe away from me in that regard. But: Given a cursory look at his wiki page and Cosma Shalizi's review of his 2002 book on cellular automata [1], I feel fairly comfortable saying that it seems like he fell in the logician's trap of assuming that everything is computable [2]:
>There’s a whole way of thinking about the world using the idea of computation. And it’s very powerful, and fundamental. Maybe even more fundamental than physics can ever be.
>Yes, there is undecidability in mathematics, as we’ve known since Gödel’s theorem. But the mathematics that mathematicians usually work on is basically set up not to run into it. But just being “plucked from the computational universe”, my cellular automata don’t get to avoid it.
I definitely wouldn't call him a crackpot, but he does seem to be spinning in a philosophical rut.
I like his way of thinking (and I would, because I write code for a living), but I can't shake the feeling that his physics hypotheses are flawed and are destined to bear no fruit.
Produced by a Mormon whose dissertation was supervised by an atheist Professor of the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion. This may be a data point in favor of the trustworthiness of the podcast, or it may be an argument against, depending on your own personal point of view.
I can't speak for the particular material referenced, but ... good faith is a lot to ask for in religious meta-literature. So often I see arguments based on the following:
* Start by assuming all the weird stuff didn't actually happen. We all know that fiction is stranger than truth.
* Next, assume it's impossible to foretell the future (in particular, "people who hate each other will start a war" can obviously only have been written after the fact), so clearly the author lied about the date they wrote it. Also, assume that nobody ever updated the grammar (due to linguistic drift) while copying it, and that the oldest surviving copy.
* Finally, assume that all previous translations were made by utter imbeciles and reject the wording they used, even if that means picking words that mean something completely unrelated to the original. You can always just assume that the words were a typo or something, and not a blatant reference to other books on the same topic.
The most basic sign of rigorous scholarship is saying "well, maybe" a lot, with just an occasional "but definitely not that".
I can say with certainty that it is not impossible to predict the future. We can scientifically do so - advertising is a form of future prediction.
All things that exist have a cause and a consequence - nothing is unknowable if we could simply see a the data, everything could be explained exactly.
The future without is easier bc ppl are almost exactly the same based regardless of culture, ethnicity, religion or class and collectively we have been simply repeating the same mistakes, in cyclical pattern, for our entire history.
Everything has done before and everything will be done again - different eras tho, same humanity broken in the identical ways living the sames lives leading to the same mistakes and then forgetting all that and doing it again.
I gave one episode a listen and can now say it's not what you described. They conveyed actual scholarship but kept it light-hearted. Religious fundamentalists might not like it because it doesn't start from the assumption that the canonical Bible is inerrant, but for anyone who wants to learn about the Bible from an open-minded viewpoint, I think it's worth a listen.
Late reply but think of it like this: they are financially dependent on themselves. All involved have to secure any and all moneys to enable them to continue their work.
It seems that the "green" wavelength that the article cites is exactly where the lowest point of absorption is. Could this suggest that heat is created as a result of electromagnetic resistance? (Like water molecules vibrating as a result of microwave radiation?)
You can suspect whatever you would like. I don't mind.
Your comment is rather disrespectful and yet, if someone tried to shut you up, I would proportionately respond. You have a right to your disrespectful speech.
