I think you are pattern matching too hard on what I’m saying.
A population being, on average, substantially less able to comply with social rules (including murder etc) is a perfectly valid reason to bar them from entering (which I mentioned in my original comment). But let’s be realistic about what the problem is. Rhetoric about them being “bad people” essentially does get a knee jerk reaction from progressives, and I’m suggesting we focus on a different angle (which is apparently so compatible with the progressive framing that readers are confused).
The students are treated like prisoners because they were ALREADY acting that way.
Use your brain. Schools install metal detectors and hire guards because the kids were getting into fights and bringing guns/knives to school. Acting like adding a metal detector is what causes kids to bring guns to school is insanity.
They mandated prison-style policies at my alma mater, which is one of the nation's top public schools, as part of a blanket policy for the county. It was clearly not a good fit for that particular school, and my observation was that incidents rose after. I was speaking partially from that anecdote, and remain convinced that prison-style discipline is the issue (even if it precedes metal detectors).
It was “physically impossible with current technology for humans to survive a trip” to the Moon when the space race kicked off, too. The whole POINT of the space race was inventing the technology to solve those problems.
Space exploration nay-sayers really are the lamest people imaginable.
> It was “physically impossible with current technology for humans to survive a trip” to the Moon when the space race kicked off, too.
No, it wasn't. For one thing, the moon is a heck of a lot closer than Mars.
> The whole POINT of the space race was inventing the technology to solve those problems.
The point of the space race was to demonstrate technological superiority, especially with regard to missile capabilities, in the Cold War.
Calling people "lame" isn't going to address the realities of space travel, from the destructive effects of radiation on pregnancies to the physical and cognitive decline from living in a non-Earth environment for extended periods of time, effects that have been measured in astronauts who spent time on the ISS. Sending humans to Mars would practically be a death sentence for that subset of the species.
Humans on Mars will live in radiation shielded environments, and people have already endured longer space radiation exposure than received during the trip. At least the astronaut's sleeping habitat will be heavily radiation shielded on board the spacecraft.
Nuclear interplanetary craft will also shorten trip times appreciably within a decade or so.
Math Academy is not the main subject of this post. The main subject of this post is OP's attempt at getting better at math through 1000 days of self study, in which that site is an instrument. My criticism is about how his approach may have been ineffective and may not be an ideal guide for others. It is the said ineffectiveness that made me question if his attempt was genuine.
I hope this has been clear enough for you. Let me know if you need more.
> Maybe it seemed too good to be true and we should have been more critical of the findings.
I mean, I always was. My rule has always been - if something seems too good to be true, it is.
This is my biggest issue with ‘progressive’ types. They always seem to get drawn in by hype and flash, and neglect to consider 2nd order effects. I’ve had an endless number of conversations with friends of this persuasion where I point out very very obvious problems with some hot new idea they are so enamored with, which they inevitably poo-poo as me being a mean old cynical conservative. And a few years later we end up with articles like above.
You already pay a wealth tax. It's called property tax. Most people wealth (if any) is concentrated in the house or appartement they live in. And so the real wealth tax is already here.
reply