You expect kids to not heed the advice of the adults around them? And when those kids grow up to be adults and realize that the advice they were given was all bullshit to suddenly not see the utter waste of time and energy into worthless goals put before them their entire lives?
What are you talking about?
The main responsibility of adults is to prepare the next generation. Realizing that failure is not being jaded, it's confronting reality about the failures of adults.
Would NYT publish scathing remarks about itself, or publish leaked internal data on itself? If not, I don't think such a thing should be expected of twitter either.
If anything the problem used to be that we overestimated the importance of memorization. Maybe it's changed now, but trying to free cognitive load is important. It's the same reason why literary societies beat oral ones. The emphasis on memorization was reduced.
I would argue that we have much more original content today than ever before and so it's far more difficult to actually make anything truly groundbreaking. The narrative landscape today is far more complex, diverse, and refined than from even the early 2000s, let alone anything prior.
Household economics were often controlled by women, as well as structuring/securing social alliances or solidify social status. So it isn't hyperbole, so much as this aspect is entirely lost with more "modern" ideas about gender roles, rather the lack thereof.
In older societies it was common to view women as playing a central role in bringing great ruin or great fortune to men, and by extension "their" empires, for this very reason.
Privacy is about maintaining an inviolable personal space, and the fourth amendment is very explicitly about limiting state violation of the individual person, their property, papers, or effects.
Papers in particular is important because it is quite literally in reference to information. To this day information has to be acquired legally in order for it to be admissable in court.
I really don't understand why people don't get the idea of "digital native".
Just because verbal agreements worked for thousands of years doesn't make written contracts pointless.
Similarly the banking industry technically does "online banking" but they still have to process each transaction through archaic practices that mimic physical transactions.
And I would like to see that minimum wage worker in America say they're "burnt out" to third-world country workers. You would think the old "think about the starving children in Africa" retort would die out by now... Just because things can be worse doesn't mean things aren't bad. Making things better, not worse, should always be the goal.
On the same note suicidal or depressed people can similarly be called privileged, spoiled, or what have you, but that would seriously be tone-deaf.
Because other countries like Singapore or Japan, which have world class cities, actually care about their citizens and provide them with real support. This kind of dogmatic thinking in America will literally be the end of it.
"Beatings will continue until morale improves", was not meant to be advice.
This is literally not new and has been the case even in the west for centuries. In fact in many ways it contributed to its domination. It's just that the post WW2 era was entirely an anomaly, and one that we got too comfortable with.
The idea that "if the company makes money" is taken as a universal here is false. In the real world it is entirely contentious, and the source these sorts of conflicts. The fact is no one knows for sure the future prospects of a company, but people with power can surely ram through their ideas even in the face of economic pain.
Wrangling that sort of power maneuver is the responsibility of the founder; that is if they wish to retain their control.
What might be missed is that black and blue are not necessarily differentiated. I know that, at least among Indian languages specifically Sanskrit, black and blue aren't as differentiated as they are today. A dark color/black was seen as dark blue.
A lot of early voyages funded by the various crowns was actually put under extreme secrecy so much so that many sailors would only later be told of the real voyage...
At least that's what I recall reading awhile back. If anyone could corroborate that would be nice.
Scientist: We need a machine that can fly so we can travel faster.
Universe: You have feet. It took me a few billion years to craft the perfect long distance running machine, and tuned it for your purposes and called it human.
In other words, what the are you even talking about? Naturalism is stupid. If we were to rely solely on what "God", err rather "universe" has "created" for us we would have been stuck in a stagnant evolutionary pool with little of the modern conveniences most of us enjoy today.
Forget spacefaring civilizations, forget even planetary civilizations, actually forget even nation-states we would be happily meandering about the Sahara with little care save for your typical eat-sleep-fuck routine.
The idea that only testable predictions are valid is... short sighted. Seriously considering extraordinary ideas with as much rigor as possible, with the tools available, is something that has propelled science. If not then ideas about the moon would have been dead in the water.
If anything this kind of "rationalism" only conceals dogmatic ideas about what is or isn't possible..
Resilience. Being multi-planetary means your species is fundamentally protected from almost all catastrophic events. Having presence among multiple stars systems would mean not even planetary level destruction would be a threat to a species. As it currently stands humans are still very much in a precarious situation as an errant asteroid, even a decade away, could mean game over for all of humanity.
What are you talking about?
The main responsibility of adults is to prepare the next generation. Realizing that failure is not being jaded, it's confronting reality about the failures of adults.