Me neither. But it’s very much in keeping with other seriously-intended suggestions I’ve heard. Optimism is fine until it becomes just dreaming and wishing out loud.
There are betrayals so severe that a grindingly slow due process is actually itself an addition betrayal. Not arguing for a kangaroo court, but tenure should not be a defense for blatant cheating.
> Aristotle, Leibniz, Einstein or whatever brilliant person you can think of didn't become who they are using cue-cards.
You aren’t Einstein, I presume. Neither am I. So first of all, you can’t say that with any certainty.
But more importantly, the vanishingly small top end of the bell curve does not hold useful lessons for the rest of us. Things that mere mortals have to expend effort on are not even a second thought for them, so they have nothing to teach someone who is working to learn things they never even tried to learn.
This is why great coaches are usually middling athletes. This is why great teachers are rarely great in the field they teach. This is why lessons from those who are great are often frustrating and filled with statements like “just…you know…do X.”
> Our broad list of demands includes, but is not limited to: Climate action. Universal healthcare. Racial justice. Reproductive rights. LGBTQIA+ rights. Living wage / raise the minimum wage. Immigration reform. Education reform. Gun safety. Tax the rich. Affordable housing. Disability rights. Welfare and child support reform. Voters rights. Constitutional convention. Paid family and medical leave. Criminal justice system reform. Workers’ rights. Permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
> Specific demands will come from leaders and experts of existing fights for racial, economic, gender and environmental justice.
I don't want to disparage any of these specific demands, I agree with a lot (not all) of them, but put together they're so overly broad as to be a pipe dream. They might as well say they want to start a new political party that's slightly to the left of the Democrats.
The one thing that does stick out to me though is the Constitutional Convention. This is a bizarre ask, and it must be how they see their demands being passed into, not only law, but an amendment to the Constitution. The problem is calling a convention is so difficult† that their strike will last, essentially, forever. The last and only time we had a convention was in 1787.
"> Our broad list of demands includes, but is not limited to: Climate action. Universal healthcare. Racial justice. Reproductive rights. LGBTQIA+ rights. Living wage / raise the minimum wage. Immigration reform. Education reform. Gun safety. Tax the rich. Affordable housing. Disability rights. Welfare and child support reform. Voters rights. Constitutional convention. Paid family and medical leave. Criminal justice system reform. Workers’ rights. Permanent ceasefire in Gaza."
I’m not sure, but I thought their business model involved applying machine learning on user answers, like their translations of excerpts of written text / handwriting samples.
I think what I was recalling is the crowdsourcing translations mechanic, which is far more low tech:
> But wait – how could a beginner-level student translate advanced sentences? The solution that Duolingo employs uses the power of crowdsourcing, which involves many students offering their attempts at translating individual sentences. As each student submits a sentence, they can rate others’ translations, and the most highly rated translations “rise to the top.”
Over time, entire documents are translated and students gain many skill points for their language practice. It’s easy to see how the data collected from users could be useful to improve the algorithms that underly computer translation[…]
Duolingo has come a long way from those origins. It’s a gamified language learning app now, but with support of some languages reflecting that earlier crowd-sourced era. This video is a super interesting dive into the history and current state:
FWIW, I like Duolingo and think it is a healthy and productive use of gamification, but that does come at the cost of pure efficiency and comprehensive treatment of grammar. It’s best when paired with other tools.
Most people’s problem with learning a language is not speed, it’s the quit rate.
I witnessed a memorable moment at work when an engineer responded to a VP and started by saying “careful.” Had it been another engineer, it would have been ignored as authoritative-sounding filler. But the VP did not take it well.
Do you mind explaining why this was problematic? I'm working to track down things that I say that might be interpreted in ways other than I intend, and this sounds like a mistake I would make. What's the problematic message that's being sent here from the engineer to the VP?
I suspect that the issue here is that either the VP was insecure or that the engineer said it in an accusatory way (or both).
In all likelihood, the engineer meant "that approach/idea/decision has risks we should consider." The VP likely heard "you are suggesting something wrong/dangerous/ignorant."
A nuance here is that the engineer probably implied that "(We should be) careful (in our consideration)" and the VP perceived "(You need to be) careful (and you don't seem to be)"
As stated by another response, it says the speaker thinks the listener is careless.
It also places the speaker in a position of authority, admonishing someone who is still learning. "Careful!" is what we say to children. A high-status person may be particularly sensitive to this, but nobody likes to be talked down to. As I alluded, I hear this amongst engineers and filter it out as verbal fluff, so there are cases where it is ok.
An easy alternative to "careful" is "I'm not sure about that" or even "I disagree." Both are what peers would say to each other. In scenarios where a high-status person is not receptive to being talked to as a peer, well, you get to add all the deference and qualification you need to, but it comes down to stating disagreement in a non-disagreeable way.
You say careful, and their ego probably hears you calling them careless. Careless is typically an avoided behavior so this hurts them. They view themselves as careful and wise. You think they're dumb. (Not necessarily a syllogism, but the ego is weird)
I'm possibly paraphrasing and simplifying too much but "How to Win Friends and influence People" mentions being very cautious about correcting people, more so correcting them publically, even when you are correct.
.png){kind=link}
/s
reply