not sure about the case here, but a common executive play I've seen at bigcorps is:
1. take credit for what was in-flight when you came in
2. kick off massive projects which you can't possibly be around to measure before you bounce to the next gig
3. switch roles / bounce and blame it on your successor (if anyone bothers to follow up / ask)
Another element here is that a lot of that "money printing" went overseas. Agree with what you say, this time it was all sent domestically as part of stimulus checks.
I can see wanting to keep my job secret from my peers, but not from my employer. How can you build trust with whomever you're working with? I can't imagine feeling comfortable sending anything in writing in a work environment to a colleague who has no reputational accountability (both within / outside the firm).
Another major issue in this discussion is the definition of 'teacher'. As referenced throughout these comments, a 'teaching' job varies dramatically on the district, age, etc. Students from a difficult home life need a social worker than an algebra teacher, yet the state mandates the class no matter how poor the delivery, content, outcome, etc. Meanwhile, teachers get stuck with responsibilities not in their job description...no wonder so many quit.
Its antithetical to the American dream (i.e. an equal starting point for everyone) but we must provide different paths better suited to acknowledging reality and providing reasonable outcomes. Staff them with job descriptions fitting the actual need, and work from there.
Regardless of planted or no - feel sorry for whatever digital forensic examiner had to confirm it was indeed what it was. Not the victim in this scenario, but its an often-overlooked and extremely unpleasant role to confirm this stuff.
Tired is the right word. He's a complex person doing interesting things, with a lot of noise mixed in. I don't care for how the cult of celebrity has grown to dominate public discourse, particularly since Trump got elected. Keep your celebrities out of my limited attention, particularly if its irrelevant to the actual events at hand.
Of course, the fact that Musk is materially affecting Twitter, Trump was president, etc. totally call for their manic actions as newsworthy. Ugh. Too much power concentrated in the hands of too few.
totally agree! is it because we trust the known (i.e. celebrity faux-experts) over the unknown (i.e. legitimate experts)? For instance, Trump asking voters to place all power in his hands rather than an anonymous administrative class. Is the answer as simple as familiarity breeds trust? Or do we prefer the superficial answers they give us, which we would instinctively reach for, as opposed to the 'shades of grey' answers experts usually provide?
Personally, I interviewed with ARK and quickly walked away once I spoke with the actual analysts on her team. They spewed the same hype-babble she does and lacked an informed view of the industries they covered. Its fine to market the hype if that's what you're selling, but you can't sell yourself on it too.
It appears that the end point of debates around this end in both parties having their own "lived experiences" based on fundamentally different "truths". How can anyone reach agreement on anything under these rules?
Could the element of "personal experiences" be the cause? Limiting proof points to established facts rather than subjective experience helps tremendously. Someone claiming whatever has a much more powerful voice (and is less likely to be silenced as a vocal one-off) when citing research. Similar to how academic papers don't reference the author exclusively, but rather peer papers.
Everyone has a unique and relevant perspective - lived reality is reality! But with so much noise, its far easier to dismiss individual voices than reporting on the aggregated voices of others. This filters out confounding variables and roots the hypothesis in fact (e.g. Consider an individual reporting of a nearby road keeping them awake at night. It could be they have an uncomfortable mattress, a light on in the room, or any other factor. Only when other neighbors report the same issue is the proposed cause worth a serious look).
Obviously this is more difficult in lower incident / harder to measure areas - e.g. bias, harassment, etc. Don't have a good answer here other than the burden of hard proof is unfortunately on the accuser, which leads to so many of the troubles society is grappling with today. Things like police bodycams seem to help, but resolving all disputes based on 'lived experience' doesn't seem like the best outcome.
I deferred joining a Bio lab out of undergrad after being pulled aside during my acceptance visit and given an 'academia life 101' from a postdoc. There were too many bio PhDs, too few academic positions, and too few opportunities in the business sector to have a lucrative and fulfilling career. Unless I was very lucky - according to this postdoc - I was making a poor decision. He advised me to go to industry a few years then reconsider.
I never looked back, and I often reflect on his intervention.
It saddens me greatly that many of my friends still in Bio have lived this prediction, while meanwhile academica's administrative staff counts (and salaries) balloon. For all the promise to human economy, bio is still astoundingly complex, difficult to monetize, and hard to justify increased budgets for. On the flip side, as essential to our planet and culture as understanding esoteric biological knowledge is (e.g. deep-sea fish behavior), nobody is willing to fund it at the scale needed before much of it disappears forever thanks to climate change.
Not sure how the wage issue can be solved, but more sources of funding towards hard research for research's sake (i.e. fact-finding in-vivo science) seems like it could help. So too, could forcing schools to obviously pay more by reducing the amount of admitted students. Less labor supply could give some leverage to often powerless grad students.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that. Its the best of the worst. You just lower the threshold to hit the volumes / default rate you're comfortable with to make a profit. Subprime is anything lower than 670, so you don't need to go so low.
The subprime space is really interesting vs mortgages. Like others mention, the due diligence these providers run for these is minimal.
The business model has been so successful in recent years because there have been such large numbers of applicants. Even though they approve only a fraction, the sheer volume means their business is booming. This all translates into not having to dig any deeper than credit scores.
As you mention, poorer students are denied the opportunity to take more advanced classes. But even those who do are faced with a massive disadvantage.
See, top tier private schools shamelessly pass students unwilling to actually learn [1]. These same schools and parents subsequently leverage connections, wealth, etc. to insert their students into prestigious schools...where they continue to not learn math (and ultimately are hand-held to high-paying, white collar jobs, but that's another story)
Net result is unfilled higher math seats filled, and with that less math competence across society. Fewer thinkers advancing our perspective, etc.
Opportunities to access these materials is key, but providing consistent standards is just as important. If we can't do that with math, where?
[1] prior work with NE boarding schools, witnessed the contortions these institutions would go through to pass / give top marks to obviously unqualified students.
was this video made by an AI?