"I agree with this, but I'd replace soft with relentlessly selfish. Instead of realizing the need to work together to make something better, they're in it for personal gain."
Please do not use the phrases "simple misreading" or "deliberate attempt to twist words" to describe anyone else
My portrait is pretty objective - please get deported to some other countries so you can find out what living conditions are and what "in it for personal gain" turns into in the rest of the world. Our system is really not that bad, even taking into account the malevolent actors
Elderly people are not soft. Elderly senators caught the tail end of WW2 and the Cold War. Relentlessly selfish refers to young people who think believe mother nature itself entitles them to the newest iPhone, free housing, healthcare, and debt forgiveness with less financial awareness than the senators they're complaining about.
“I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid.”
Honestly, your bias probably comes from hanging around a boring crowd of people.
Also, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say you're probably (probably is a kind word) an idiot, along with the people upvoting this. It is dissapointing but unsurprising to see this ignorace as the top comment. Throughout history, as people age, they acquire power and resources. That's irrespective of race or gender and changing lifespans. Why would they, in any society, as a social group, willingly hand off control to an younger (and more incompetent and less experienced) generation who, more often than not, will not achieve the results they're promising?
By both virtue of education and selection process, and given that their education was adequately rigorous, they've likely been working hard at academics for > 10 years, they had the mental faculties to understand everything in their field, and they're certified by grades from the most educated people in their field on the planet (same is true for other top universities, as well). There are far more problems with hiring 15 year olds at NASA than sheer volume of applications - I would advise you to think more deeply about what you're suggesting as, even in your alternative education scenario, it's a truly terrible idea.
Devil's advocate: why is that a bad thing? Kids get social/organization exposure, to sports, music, basic education. The motivated ones are still apparently rising to the top despite the shitty environment. Most humans don't need to go into rocket science, and half of your graduating class will end up directly selling things to other people (in some form or another).As well, are you arguing that kids need less social exposure? That would be true if most kids were going to become software developers, which is not the case. Most of our social interactions do not occur in childhood; you're not speaking for everyone.
What I will say, that is somewhat similar to what you're arguing, is that it would be great if students had direct access to more challenging curriculums at every stage of their education. To my knowledge, ambitious high schoolers need benefactors willing to pay for college courses that are standard fare for secondary school in a lot of countries. If you're naturally bright and hard working without affluent parents, you're SOL in HS, which is not fair, and I think it's also unreasonable that they need to rely on being autodidactic from a young age, which is really the only alternative.
Great example, rocket science, let’s throw a bunch of 15 year olds who say they want to be a rocket scientist into nasa. What could go wrong? The mit engineering grad has proven for a few more years that he’s less likely to screw things up. The system sucks but it’s not an easy problem to solve
Mortgages are not a remotely valid analogy here unless, in the case of Robinhood, you try to compare it with margin accounts, which I think is actually a fair analogy but is not the case here. And even then, the bank does not steal your transaction history without your awareness or consent, as is the case here.
When I open up a checking account, all I need is my license and my SSN and $1000. They don't need the transaction history from every other checking account I have because they are not assuming any liability or risk. Such is the case with the average Robinhood customer, ergo, they should not steal the customer's transaction history from their bank. This should honestly be prosecuted.
I don't mean to be rude, but I think you have to be either high, really dumb, or a robinhood stakeholder to think that people would want this or that it would be a good idea. I would suggest moving to China if you think it's a good idea - I'm sure you will be able to get great discounts on a lot of things if your transaction history is conducive to the greater good in the near future.
It’s what the Buddhists were saying all along long! You’ll just need to accept that you don’t have any self. I think Nietzsche was whining this was gonna happen too.
Or wait are you seriously suggesting it won’t happen? Honestly it’s better than the social credit system can’t own property or ride a train thing if we have to be honest.
Do you have any proof that non technical managers are setting the hiring bar and writing the requirements for data science positions at most companies, which is what it seriously sounds like you’re implying. The guy above you was joking