A good spot would be behind the word " sentient", so that you can read join lemmy faintly above it. This would discourage lazy people from removing or altering it
If you have issues with autism you’re gunna have a bad time talking to me. Lemmy ain’t 4chan, but there is a 4chan community for you to talk as offensively as you like
Using autism as an insult isn’t exactly colorful, it just shows you’ve never met and/or respected an autistic person.
Colorful would’ve been something like “fucknut idiots with donkey cum for brains”, or “shitbrained human equivalents of a week-old used tampon”, or “assfaces who would lose a spelling competition to a dead camel”, etc.
You could be a lot more creative, funny, and less offensive if your goal is colorful. If your goal is to regurgitate weak ass meme language from 4chan, keep equating people you don’t like with autism
Yeah. I remember I got heavily downvoted on reddit once when I made an Office reference, which seemed weird to me since reddit usually loves the Office, but then I only slowly realized in context the reference inadvertently seemed really racist which was very much not my intention so I deleted it.
Nah someone made a reference to someone in their 40s being too old for the person i “defended”, I made a joke about not kink shaming, then someone explained it to me.
I misread it as they liked older people.
Gotta be careful making shitty jokes when you’ve been drinking all night.
I leave them up, but edit to say what I think about it now. I value transparency and the willingness to change your mind when presented with new facts or apologize for being wrong, and I want to set an example for others to see. I’ve been an ass and said things I regret later, and I’ll do it again I’m sure.
They completely botched the WotLK server situation launch as well.
I waited for that shit for years, and me and many others couldn’t play no matter how much money we were willing to spend to do so. I don’t know if they ever fixed the servers, but back in December they were still a hot mess.
Also, to a lesser degree, SC2.
They certainly lost a loyal customer in me, at least.
Well this year was overwatch 2, which was pretty much the same game but wrapped in skeezy monetization, with the excuse that they needed to drop a sequel (and delete the original) for their new PVE content. Then a few months later, they announced they weren’t even going to do the PVE content, but they were keeping the new monetization.
That’d make sense, I just remember visiting my brother in-law around christmas last year and he was playing it and telling me about the controversy about it being the same game.
But yeah everything blurs together lately, don’t know if it’s because everything is so chaotic, or just because I’m getting old lol
Seriously fuck them to death for this. And their “new maps” is just like the same fucking maps but at nighttime or daytime instead! OoO what a sequel! The company deserves to crash and burn.
Also I PAID for one of the call of duty games and after a year they one day just said I can’t play it anymore because they ended support for older versions of windows, of course they also refused to refund me. I didn’t buy “one year” of gameplay I bought the fucking game. Never making that mistake again.
Just relentlessly fucking greedy and shitty. It’s a shame people enable this bullshit by spending $30 on character skins and paying out the ass for lootboxes. We need to answer them with the loss of our business. I did my part and uninstalled all their IP and refuse to give them another dollar of my money ever again until/unless I see a 180 in their policies and practices.
I didn’t buy “one year” of gameplay I bought the fucking game.
That right there is the root of the overall problems we’re seeing: licensing, and the increasing willingness of assholes with MBAs to use licensing as a weapon to increase profits.
When you pay your money, you’re not getting anything but the right to use the thing for as long as the company decides to let you keep using it. They take your money AND they retain the right to revoke or change the license whenever and however they want.
The only way to win this kind of game is to a) not play it, and/or b) take to the high seas.
This year was also Diablo 4. And they have been driving that one further and further into the ground. The OW2 lore shit is another turd on the pile. Dragonflight is continuing a “more of the same but we told it’d be different” trend, but is honestly their smallest fuck up in a list of fuck ups.
Was HotS dying last year? OW1 was basically on life support for the past two years in order to support the OW2 fiasco so I feel like that should count as it’s own entity… Once we’re into last year, there’s Diablo Immoral
Seriously? They’ve been one of the most shitty companies for years. They’ve been on the top of the most talked about and widely shown because of all their bad decisions. How does anyone who has even a remote idea and interest about this not know that?
I'd also imagine an airtag is useless in this scenario as if it crashed and no one knows about it, it's likely not near someone's Bluetooth enabled phone either.
Do they not put beacons on their seats either? How did they find the pilot? I'd imagine if it were an issue, it could be deactivated in wartime or over enemy lines.
Even on home turf it’s not great if the enemy/terrorists can find out where your equipment is. Pearl Harbor was on US soil.
Obviously it would be nice in this specific scenario, but how often would that really be useful in comparison to the potential security issues that comes along with it?
I'd imagine it's something that can be turned on and off, just like it's stealth technology.
Edit: to further expand on this, finding the downed plane is a lot more important than it sounds. This could technically be classified as spillage considering there is classified tech in an F35. Foreign agents would benefit if they found it first. I'm pretty sure there are recon teams trained to recover downed aircraft in military zones. Considering they still are equipped with radio for communication, I'd imagine even just an encrypted message at time of impact could be useful.
Losing a plane over friendly zones shouldn't have to worry about having a beacon that's always on. I fail to understand why it would be silly to believe one could be useful in a jet fighter, stealth or not. I'd imagine it's likely even present but just defunct for whatever reason in this scenario and details can't be revealed about that, as again, it still contains classified technology.
Why can everything else can be turned off when needed but not this? Surely “the pilot ejected” would be a good moment to start knowing what’s going on with the plane
Because putting a beacon on a stealth aircraft is like installing a flashlight onto an invisible car.
Even if people can’t see the rest of the invisible car, they’ll see the flashlight and track that instead. At a minimum, such a feature would be ‘default off’, and never default on.
A stealth aircrafts literal design is to be invisible to enemy radio waves. The last thing you wanna do is you know… Emit a radio beacon.
I agree, buf why is it not “default off but in the case the pilot is doing impromptu skydiving and the plane currently on the way to becoming acquainted with the ground, give us a little update”
The F35 is the result of Billions of research and development dollars. And the adversaries we have (ie: China) are very, very good at copying technology.
Stealth aircraft spend a lot more time flying training missions over friendly territory than combat missions over enemy territory. They use transponders on training missions, such as this one, because they want to be easily visible to other military and civilian pilots.
They still have them but because of course they do. They can be turned off easily enough. I’m not sure what sorts of modes they have when ejecting. I could prolly find an AF tech and ask.
F35s have transponders, just like every other aircraft that flies in the US. They are necessary to avoid mid-air collisions. When flying a stealth mission in enemy airspace, they can turn the transponders off.
Same. Whatsapp. The market has become so fragmented that it’s all about social clout and what you can compel others to install just to talk to your sorry ass.
I actually use WA a lot. Most of my family doesn’t live in the same country I do and I have quite a few friends in different countries. Texting is not an option for us.
But Instagram, as far as I know, is just a platform to post pictures. I don’t care about my own pictures or pictures of others.
Twenty hours in and it’s up to me to remind people that Dolly Parton is the full package?
She’s got tunes, OK ‘I Will Always Love You’ is a bit cloying but the rumour is that she also wrote Jolene the same day
She supports other women. When porn star Julia Parton was around and telling people that she was Dolly’s cousin, Dolly’s public response was something like, 'She ain’t my cousin but I can’t condemn what she does… it’s not like I ever tried to hide my breasts. Good luck to her.'
She produced Buffy The Vampire Slayer through her production company Sanddollar. She kept a low profile publicly but behind the scenes was very supportive of the show because it provided good role models for young women.
She funds the Dolly Parton Imagination library which mails free books to kids under five.
Dolly Parton is a rich theme park owner who has abused her employees and she pals around with mass murderers like George W. Bush.
At a certain point she had credibility. She came from a poor Appalachian background and made music reflecting that. After a certain point though, after decades in the industry, she completely flipped. Her 9 to 5 song used to be a genuine anthem for struggling working class people, then she flipped it a few years ago as “5 to 9” for a Sqaurespace commercial, glorifying the idea of working a second job after your main one.
She’s the exact problem of modern country music. It’s made and financed by people too rich to be connected to humanity anymore.
Participate in what? Society? So you just don’t want trans people to exist in it? You realize that makes you transphobic, right? The fact that you even posted here indicates that you’re not being honest.
No I dont mean I dont want them to exist I want them to be themselves Im just not going to call them anything but he or she thats all. You can call me transphobic if you want but in my mind im just indifferent. I wont stop someone calling themself what they want Im just not currently interested in doing it.
Let’s say we work together. I insist that I don’t care about gender and see no reason why I should. As such, I decide to refer to you as ‘lady’ or ‘girl’ over the course of our daily conversations.
Would that not bother you? You don’t think that wouldn’t eventually start having an effect on you? Being constantly misidentified, misgendered, or having a part of who you are be literally disregarded?
Do you have a nickname or a preferred name? I do and Im a cis man. My nickname is a less common nickname of my full name. If you call me by the more common nickname I usually do not respond because in 50 years that was always a different person’s name and not mine.
If you know me for long enough and you keep calling me the wrong name I am going to think you are pretty rude because you should know my name if you know me.
It’s the same way with pronouns. No rational person is going to jump down your throat for using the wrong pronoun the first time as you aren’t aware of their preference, but when you have been told a few times it is rude.
My question is, why is there a distinction between a man identifying as a woman, an old pedo identifying as a 6 year old boy and a white woman identifying as a black one (this last one I know was real and just can’t remember the name of the person)?
It’s really not that hard to understand why one is problematic and the other one isn’t. The only reason someone would have an issue with trans people is by inventing some “threat” to justify outdated and harmful societal taboos.
First of, it’s not just threats, real assaults have happened already. And tons of cases of women complaining about not wanting to see male genitalia in locker rooms exist.
Second, I would argue that at least the white woman identifying as black is just as harmless, if not more.
Equating pedophilia with the sensibilities of a few reactionary women being harmed from simply seeing genetalia, when they can simply look the other way, is not the own you think it is.
Are trans people more likely to assault than the rest of the population? The fear you feel is implemented by societal norm and you are attempting to justify it which makes your standards way less than for changing your mind. What would change your mind on this is what you need to figure out. Then you ask yourself if that’s a reasonable amount of skepticism. You can work through your bias and become a better and less hateful person. I believe in you.
More assaults take place against trans people than are made by trans people.
I don’t want to see old man’s balls in men’s locker room either but the way to deal with that is to not stare at other’s naked bodies.
Rachel Dolezal filed hate crime charges based on her false racial identity. That isn’t harmless. It us a different situation because she does identify as white at times.
And you are incorrect about that. You are very uninformed on this issue based on your examples. It feels like you tried to come up with counterexamples but took no time to assess their validity.
Transpeople have always existed we just did not see them as other humans historically had a habit of murdering them. Naturally this kept them out if sight and the modern transrights movement is attempting to change this.
Your second example is not a real thing and if it were and adult identifying as a child would be delusional because they are not a child. Childhood is not a social construct like gender is so the situation is different.
Rachel Dolezal was the person you were thinking of. While race is also a social construct she understood her ancestry to be different and pretended otherwise to the point if asking her brother to not point out she was white. That means she identifies as a white person on some level whereas transpeople do not identify as their assigned birth gender.
My uncle missed Thanksgiving 2019 because he was in an Arkansas hospital for “untreatable viral pneumonia” and the various complications that came with it. Shit was fucking everywhere already by then.
My gf and I had a gnarly something in early 2020 and we’re still not sure if it was COVID or not. I couldn’t smell, but that was seemingly from taking Mucinex, which is something that can happen apparently. Not sure if any of my health problems since then are a form of long COVID or not 🤷♂️.
My father had the worst flu of his life in January of 2020, bed-ridden for a week. And conveniently, he never caught covid. He’s absolutely convinced what he had was covid, and at this point, I’m inclined to believe it.
You’re saying the horse with 2 to 1 odds is guaranteed to win. Every once in a while the horse with 5 to 1 wins with a dead rider on its back. They’re odds for a reason.
Is it possible that this dudes uncle had covid in 2019 in America? Sure, just like it’s POSSIBLE… but not likely.
Again, everyone who had a random ass flu/cold/bug in 2019/2020 almost inevitably thinks they had covid. Look at all the anecdotal evidence provided in this thread alone… but as far as I know we have zero proof of that occurring.
Judging from the fact that it was contagious as fuck and when it did pop up in a community, the spread was quick and ferocious… I kinda just think people who claim to have some weird shit in early 2020, just had some weird shit. Not covid.
Considering how fucked up the whole tracing and research situation was once the scourge hit, (not to mention any proper experimentation on how to treat it, everyone was just trying anything because they were desperate) and how rapidly the variants have evolved once the scientists knew what they were looking for, I wonder if there might have been a less deadly variant or two earlier, which could have traveled out of China in apparently healthy people, while the deadly version was starting to wreak havoc in Wuhan. People who assume they have the flu often don’t go to the doctor and get tested, since they’ll just be told to go to bed and drink fluids. It was only when hospitals started to see a lot of very sick people testing negative for flu that they started to suspect something new.
2% of all tested US blood donations given December 13-19 2019 had antibodies to and neutralized COVID, and because people don’t donate blood while sick, those folks likely had and fought it off around Thanksgiving. Source:
“Planned obsolescence tends to work best when a producer has at least an oligopoly. Before introducing a planned obsolescence, the producer has to know that the customer is at least somewhat likely to buy a replacement from them in the form of brand loyalty. In these cases of planned obsolescence, there is an information asymmetry between the producer, who knows how long the product was designed to last, and the customer, who does not. When a market becomes more competitive, product lifespans tend to increase.”
As much as I agree that individual releases are lackluster and uninspiring usually I just can’t agree with a 13yo phone being very capable today. The benefits that are compounded after 3 or 4 releases is usually worth the switch. However I do firmly believe these devices should last at least that long.
Not to mention most people are ecstatic to have their washing machine, refrigerator, water heater, or even their cars for so long and usually it isn’t without compromises. Just about any appliance lasting that long is considered good luck.
Computational devices are even harder to continue using for so long and usually not because they break but because they become inadequate as processing power follows Moore’s law. I would guess most people use their laptops for about 5 years before feeling like they have to upgrade because it feels slow but I remember the laptop I had 13 years ago and the thought of still using that now fills me with dread.
If you want a small phone, then look for rugged ones. There are a lot of options with screen sizes all the way down to sub 4". Finding one with android 12 or 13 might take some work, but they are out there.
That’s why I use Z Fold now. Small phone width when folded, big ass screen when you’re lounging and have the other hand free to use the phone. I can’t even use the regular slab phone now because I’m used to the narrow cover screen.
People say that the phone is thick when folded but I found out that it made the phone easier to hold due to its thickness. I’m also the kind of guy who uses a phone for the long term, my previous phone was a ROG Phone 2 that I used for four years. I decided to upgrade because most of my work now is done on my phone while I’m out and about and having a larger screen to review some documents has been a lifesaver for me.
Yeah, the second one will directly affect the first one positively. Essentially, school work needs to be the most interesting thing you can do in school, otherwise you will have low motivation. It’s not the job of the the school staff to make the material extremely interesting, it’s their job to remove every more interesting thing from the reach of students.
Read up on dopamine if you didn’t understand that.
While you’re on that, you could research how things don’t become more interesting by the absence of more interesting things and how dopamine is required for attention and information retention.
Doing nothing to motivate except removing potential distractions from unengaging school work doesn’t work and can even hurt students’ mental health as they experience issues of guilt and inadequacy from being unable to do what’s required of them.
I ask because schools do a lot to motivate but kids often dismiss it as lame or complain about the efforts. It’s very easy to say “motivate kids” but actual ideas aren’t common.
Let me give you an example, everyone has heard “when will we use this in real life?” in math class. The same people asking those questions are the same that groan at word problems. So you have kids complaining that won’t be able to use something in real life, and upset when they have to solve a real life problem. What’s the real complaint the student has? They have to try.
I agree that so much more can be done to make school fun, but it’s not all on the teachers. Students have to be present, participate and willing to leave their comfort zone in order to have better results.
Great question. And a hard one. But knowing a proposed solution will worsen the situation is an important step in it.
It’s like every time a person says “see, this is what happens when you don’t hit children” at every behavior issue. Even though we know that hitting children objectively worsens behavior over doing nothing, but they insist that doing the only thing they know, even if harmful, is better.
Let me give you an example, everyone has heard “when will we use this in real life?” in math class. The same people asking those questions are the same that groan at word problems
I had a math teacher that helped us see which math we would use in real life, and which math we wouldn’t, and helped us understand why the latter was still important for us to know. Everyone paid attention to her.
What’s the real complaint the student has? They have to try.
When you have a room of 30 students and 29 of them are complaining about something, we need to remind people that one of the real life uses of math (stats & probability to be precise) is to point out how unlikely it is that those 29 students are the causal variable.
I agree that so much more can be done to make school fun, but it’s not all on the teachers. Students have to be present, participate and willing to leave their comfort zone in order to have better results.
“Personal Responsibility” attitudes just doesn’t work for crowd dynamics, especially with regards to children. The way a group behaves is nearly 100% predictable from the balance of outside human factors. In this case, the outside factors are parents and teachers. That’s it. Either there is something that all the parents are doing wrong, or the teachers.
Since there are some teachers who have far more success than others (common “favorite subjects” based on school), that means the most likely cause, and mechanism for improvements, are the teachers.
It’s like every time a person says “see, this is what happens when you don’t hit children” at every behavior issue. Even though we know that hitting children objectively worsens behavior over doing nothing, but they insist that doing the only thing they know, even if harmful, is better.
When you have a room of 30 students and 29 of them are complaining about something … point out how unlikely it is that those 29 students are the causal variable.
You are saying 29 out of 30 people can’t be right, which is very wrong. But what you miss is that it’s really 3-4 kids disrupting and the rest going along because it’s easier.
It’s the path of least resistance, and people will jump onto the easy path.
“Personal Responsibility” attitudes just doesn’t work for crowd dynamics,
Except they do. Look at all the examples of Japanese fans cleaning stadiums.
In a crowd most people will follow the norm. If the norm is playing on your phone and not listening, the you have a bad time. It’s not punishing kids because teachers are bad at their jobs, it’s setting a behavioral norm.
Next time you dislike your teacher think about when you got stuck in a group with people who wouldn’t do anything. Now imagine a class full of them. If just one or two more people put in a little effort good things would happen.
I disagree. For two reasons. First, there is only a couple studies in your link, and its “difference-in-difference” strategy does not seem (at least prima facie) to shown effective isolation to only a single variable. Second, it seems to be making the same mistake previously made by Psychologists in the “hitting children” debate, making unsubstantiated (or “common sense”) conclusions about the gulf in the middle after only doing a quick analysis of the two extremes. Further, your link also calls question your claim by pointing out Switzerland did not find any effectiveness in banning phones.
And the “hitting” reference was intended to point out the concern against positive advancement. There was a time where psychologists thought hitting was better than nothing even when they knew it was net harmful and so did not strongly discourage it when parents could not or would not embrace more modern parenting strategies. The same is true of phones in school (and, per your link, laptops in college). Looking at the laptop studies I could find, they have the same methodological problems the phone studies have. They’re looking presumptively at distraction, and setting up an experiment where distraction is more pronounced.
Yet laptops have a lot more research than phones. Studies mentioned above compare ubiquitous laptop use and scores, while failing to address that each individual that uses a laptop averages higher scores than individuals who do not. What studies I could find with phones could be moving in the direction of that same dynamic that shows missing understanding of how to be use technology in learning.
Let’s look at the other side of things. Another study (again, possibly flawed…I don’t trust either side’s phone studies much yet) found that removing a phone ban in NY caused an increase in overall student obedience and educational productivity, at the cost of “school culture”. As someone who grew up as a victim of “school culture” in a world where teachers supported bullying (and in many places they still do), I have no problem with that trade-off. Of course, this study does directly contradict your educatoronline article.
“If educators do not find ways to leverage mobile technology in all learning environments, for all students, then we are failing our kids by not adequately preparing them to make the connection between their world outside of school and their world inside school”
…which is more important than test scores.
You are saying 29 out of 30 people can’t be right, which is very wrong. But what you miss is that it’s really 3-4 kids disrupting and the rest going along because it’s easier. It’s the path of least resistance, and people will jump onto the easy path.
Is that something you can cite, or just your own personal “pick em up by their bootstraps” opinion? Do you have any experience with crowd simulation? Can you show any evidence that your explanation is likely, or even reasonably possible?
Except they do. Look at all the examples of Japanese fans cleaning stadiums.
That’s… not an effective or topical rebuttal at all. Did you misunderstand what I meant by “Personal Responsibility” attitudes? I referred to blaming the individuals in a large group for their failure instead of blaming the causal elements of the group. I have to deal with that type of problem regularly, where a manager tries to blame a majority of his reports (all capable and talented) of being the problem when something goes wrong. Guess who I ultimately find responsible?
Next time you dislike your teacher think about when you got stuck in a group with people who wouldn’t do anything.
Thankfully, I’m decades out on that. From the kinds of things I see and read about education, I’m grateful I don’t have to go back. But then, my education started after school anyway.
It’s concerning that you think the absence of a device is comparable to the presence of a action, in this case hitting.
I’m genuinely lost on how you think the only variable here is whether something is being banned or being encouraged. Or should I say, it’s “concerning”. Did you have a smartphone in school?
Hmm. I’m curious about this. I repeated the words you used because I thought it was appropriate to do so. Were you resorting to trying to mock me in the first place?
If so, then “glass houses” and all that. If not, then please don’t take my reply as mocking. I genuinely mean it. And I am genuinely curious if you had smartphones in school. We didn’t have them when I grew up.
Great! But you have no evidence to support your argument. Your apples to oranges comparison of laptops isn’t compelling. Nor am I compelled by your methodology argument, which seems to take issue with testing a hypothesis that phones are a distraction.
thought hitting was better than nothing even when they knew it was net harmful
Once again, we know cellphones are detrimental to learning. This is not a matter of schools failing to adapt to new technology. Tablets, computers, interactive software and more are used. It is about unrestricted cell phone use, which studies have shown hinders learning.
a phone ban in NY caused an increase in overall student obedience and educational productivity, … Of course, this study does directly contradict your educatoronline article.
No it doesn’t. It says that no phones mean better learning. You are missing the forest for the trees.
Crowd dynamics
Lots of research has been done on this, and a small number of people can influence a large group. Look at “wave” studies for more info.
Calling minimum acceptable classroom behavior “picking yourself up by your bootstraps” is absurd. It’s like saying that you can’t expect people to not talk at the theater because that’s just asking too much of people.
Great! But you have no evidence to support your argument
I cited two pieces of fairly substantive evidence in reply to someone who cited a single article. If you don’t think that is reasonable escalation of evidence, we can stop now.
Once again, we know cellphones are detrimental to learning. This is not a matter of schools failing to adapt to new technology
My cited references contradict that. More importantly, your article contradicts the “we know” part. Let me quote your reference: "Research from Sweden, however, suggests little effect of banning mobile phones in high school on student performance. "
My references made clear argument that this is indeed a case of schools failing to adapt to new technology. I even quoted a relevant quote to you.
No it doesn’t. It says that no phones mean better learning. You are missing the forest for the trees.
“My findings suggest an improvement in educational productivity due to the NYCDOE’s ban removal”. I understand there’s a double-negative in that reference, but the cited study’s findings suggest that “yes phones mean better learning”. You might disagree with it, but please reread it so that you do not misrepresent it.
Lots of research has been done on this, and a small number of people can influence a large group. Look at “wave” studies for more info.
Sure. Please demonstrate that your claims are correct. Until then, and especially because you seem to have failed to comprehend the involved references, I will wish you luck.
Calling minimum acceptable classroom behavior “picking yourself up by your bootstraps” is absurd. It’s like saying that you can’t expect people to not talk at the theater because that’s just asking too much of people.
I’ve lived an entire life of watching people blame the bulk of individuals for failures by authorities. I have become reasonably skeptical of any claims that “it’s everyone but…” the decision-maker.
One of the problems with arguing with people online is I tend to assume people are arguing in good faith.
After getting about 50 studies showing that cell phones are bad for learning, I switched to duckduckgo. Not until page 3 did I find your sources. You have waded through data that says you are wrong. I’m not interested in copying them for you.
One of the problems with arguing with people online is I tend to assume people are arguing in good faith.
One of the things that stop me from arguing with people online is when they accuse me of arguing in bad faith because I have facts they don’t like. From such no-name sites as Harvard.
EDIT: For future reference (and 2 points):
Front page is a popularity contest, and does not bear any weight to the truth of a matter, or even expert consensus of that matter.
Front page can differ between people in search engines, and these results came from the front page on mine.
So in summary, the only reply that would not have been “bad faith” in your eyes would be to concede the argument. So you got it. Congrats, you were right about every opinion you’ve ever had in your life.
The best way to motivate is to build relationship and demonstrate a sense of excitement or at least show real-world connection to content. Relationship is the key, though. Students will care more about anything you say if they trust that you care about them.
It’s not the job of the the school staff to make the material extremely interesting, it’s their job to remove every more interesting thing from the reach of students.
And this is how we reached the point where sleep is more common in a classroom than anything else. They should make the material interesting enough that people won’t have to resort to other stuff
Read up on dopamine if you didn’t understand that.
I know what dopamine (the joy hormone which the body uses as a “reward”) is. Since the body uses it as a “reward” if school gives students that, then students will like school
They should make the material interesting enough that people won’t have to resort to other stuff
Nope. It’s all relative. Compared to what’s available via the phone and internet, 90% of school material is fundamentally more boring, because important things are often boring – and there’s almost nothing you can do about it. I mean sure, an incompetent/unmotivated teacher can make the material even less interesting, but that’s also why we need competent teachers. That’s a separate problem.
So the quest to make school material more interesting than the Internet is a dead end – it’s just impossible. So they need to make everything else less interesting. Which means that phones and computers can fuck right off. If there are kids for whom this is a difficult situation and they’re unable to cope, such kids will need intervention. I.e. restrictions in free time as well.
important things are often boring – and there’s almost nothing you can do about it.
That’s downright ridiculous. The most important skill for teacher is an ability to effectively impart knowledge and in order to make students listen and remember, you need to make them interested.
So they need to make everything else less interesting.
No, they ABSOLUTELY don’t. If I’m watching a fascinating TED Talk at home, I don’t need anyone to make my favourite tv show boring in order for me to pay attention. That’s not how attention works. For someone who seems at least dimly aware of the existence of dopamine, you seem remarkably confused about the effects of a lack of it.
If there are kids for whom this is a difficult situation and they’re unable to cope, such kids will need intervention. I.e. restrictions in free time as well.
So restrictions are your only tools? I really hope you’re not a teacher or a parent, because your ideas seem not just ineffective but actually borderline abusive.
If I’m watching a fascinating TED Talk at home, I don’t need anyone to make my favourite tv show boring in order for me to pay attention.
You’re comparing a TED Talk that you chose to watch to school curriculum.
I really hope you’re not a teacher or a parent, because your ideas seem not just ineffective but actually borderline abusive.
I’m a parent who has witnessed the effects of smart devices on children, and I have made serious mistakes in this area. Those mistakes are from being not restrictive enough. I believe the society has made similar mistakes, but is slowly turning to facing and understanding those mistakes. A generation has been lost, though, and some people (like yourself it seems) are still fighting against countering these problems. I hope you’re not in any role where you can decide these things, because I think your opinions around this seem very harmful to both individuals and society.
It was supposed to be an easy to understand example of information being imparted in a more efficient way because it’s made interesting, not a one to one comparison. I felt that “listening to the teacher explain passionately and engagedly about the industrial revolution” was a bit clunky and on the nose.
I guess I underestimated how literal I have to be when dealing with someone who can’t even imagine that pedagogy other than deprivation works.
I’m a parent who has witnessed the effects of smart devices on children, and I have made serious mistakes in this area. Those mistakes are from being not restrictive enough.
No, those mistakes have likely been mostly from increasing the temptation to goof off on their phones by boring them.
I apologize, but your comments started stuoid and the devolved into ignorant nonsense, and thus poor other fella keeps engaging you like you’re capable of honest debate.
Education has never been about being more interesting than games or entertainment, and you sound like a nitwit for even suggesting it. Teachers are tasked with educating, and the #1 preventable reason for kids falling behind isn’t “entertain me more!” . . . it’s shit parenting and upbringing.
Kids lack impulse control worse than anyone – taking away cell phones is an absolute no-brainer.
I hope you’re not in any role where you can decide these things, because I think your opinions around this seem very harmful to both individuals and society.
Ignoring what we’re fighting about, just think of what you said there. You are saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that we should just not allow people with opinions that contradict you to not have any power
Sorry if I came off rude or I’m putting words in your mouth but stuff like that is not ideas I take lightly. I think it’s a threat to democracy
Back to the topic
You’re comparing a TED Talk that you chose to watch to school curriculum.
Teachers regularly put informational videos (including TED talks) on in the classroom. It never becomes less interesting because it’s forced upon me - if anything their a nice change of pace
Those mistakes are from being not restrictive enough
Can you please elaborate. What “mistakes” did you make and what do you do now (also please elaborate on the “mistakes” society made)
Ignoring what we’re fighting about, just think of what you said there. You are saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that we should just not allow people with opinions that contradict you to not have any power
That was a reaction to them saying that they hope I’m not a parent. Which I am. Obviously not a good reaction, but it happened.
Ignoring what we’re fighting about, just think of what you said there. You are saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that we should just not allow people with opinions that contradict you to not have any power
No one should be basing policy decisions on opinions anyway. Those should be based off facts and data.
Did you hear what I said about dopamine being the “joy hormone” and used as a “reward”. Your body gives out happy hormones like this after an exercise and other good stuff for you (including school work if it is interesting)
And don’t you tell me that knowledge isn’t interesting. For something to be interesting (by my definition) it must give you knowledge.
Girls twerking on TikTok is not interesting - the way Hitler died is
Memes are not interesting (unless they contain important info)
These may produce dopamine in other ways but they are not interesting
Which means that phones and computers can fuck right off.
I could be considered “tech savvy”, I know a bit of C/PHP and a lot of shell script. Explain ro me how I could learn that without a computer (I’m also self-taught)
So they need to make everything else less interesting.
As I said, sleep is something that pupils prefer to schoolwork. Get schoolwork above a bar that low and then we can talk. Amyway, it just needs to be interesting enough that students won’t feel a need to check social media
I could be considered “tech savvy”, I know a bit of C/PHP and a lot of shell script. Explain ro me how I could learn that without a computer (I’m also self-taught)
By using the computer or phone at home. Roughly half of the programmer workforce currently alive went through childhood without a mobile phone, because they didn’t exist for regular consumers. And personal laptops for children would’ve been perhaps an option for the top 1%, but probably not even them. Since you just didn’t have electronics in school.
You used Tiktok as an example for something that is more interesting than learning. (Of course it’s more interesting than learning, it’s digital crack cocaine.)
And this is how we reached the point where sleep is more common in a classroom than anything else.
I think this has more to do with sleep deprivation. I can probably count the number of days I got a full night’s rest while in high school and college on one hand. Rather than making classes more interesting (though they could do this as well I guess), they should focus on not completely overwhelming the students with homework, although I’ll admit that was more of a college thing.
Hey at least they give you some books to read if you’re bored. They’re heavy as hell, but you might learn something and get a well needed break from the phone.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.