leverage

It would be quite disheartening if I was the first person to have had the idea, or articulate it in this way, though not totally unexpected. Will search scholarly articles to see what I can find. So far these types of views are only coming from ND lead research, which thankfully appear to be accelerating recently.

There's some nature vs nurture question here. Let's take twins with an identical ND brain. Due to random chance, from an early age one twin is interested in things society finds highly valuable, and the other is interested in things society doesn't value at all. What are the outcomes from childhood on?

Have to disagree, at least back then it was the first exposure most kids got to using a computer for work at all. Even if some of the content isn't useful for most kids, it still challenges kids to learn some basic stuff they might not otherwise. I do think it's a shame that it's required even if you already know how to do everything the course teaches, but that could be said about most classes. Everyone needs to know basic computing shit, forcing people to learn Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and some other random apps is a fine way to do that, and those apps aren't going anywhere in our lifetime, nor have they changed in a way that invalidates anything taught 20 years ago. I work with people who use a computer full time for their job and it's obvious they didn't take a basic course when they were in school 20-30 years ago, or any time since. I have nephews that are 11-15, haven't taken anything like that yet and they are totally inept with even basic shit, because it wasn't taught yet and most people don't just learn without instruction.

Your last point about usefulness to a very limited set of jobs is silly considering how much actual useless to 99% of jobs shit they teach in the core curriculum. If we didn't throw all this mostly useless shit at the whole of young society, some future great scientist, artist, mathematician, etc. would rot in ignorance, at least that's the theory. Hard to say if the American education system is working at all though.

Counterpoint, most of the stuff I learned in my highschool A+ class (aimed at teaching you enough to pass a certification test that proves you can repair computers) was outdated already that year, and it's like 95% outdated now. Typing and business productivity app skills are still directly valuable for most modern people.

Most valuable skills are things like learning how to learn, critical thinking, judgement, understanding the value of time, humility, etc. I'll say that the A+ course was much better than most classes at growing those skills for me, but I could say the same thing about the construction course I took. American school system, at least when I was in it, is totally happy to output kids that only know math, science, english, and arts. It's hard to teach those life skills, harder to test for them, do we just don't.

Psychology is doing their best, it's just that their best isn't great compared to most other modern medicine. At this point, autism is still held by many in the same way it was in the 90s, only the negative traits, as some developmental disorder, etc. Some of the best tests compare the average answers to questions like that from previously diagnosed autistic people and non-autistic people. The way we think is so different, I'd wager studies would find this sort of difference with anything they asked, assuming they asked the question in a certain way and the autistic person gave the first answer that came to mind instead of the answer they'd give when masking. That doesn't make the test invalid, it just proves how profoundly different the neurotypes are.

Autism wouldn't be a disorder if everyone had the neurotype. The label is still strongly attached to the diagnosis given to people with this neurotype who also have severe mental disabilities. People still resist giving the diagnosis to high functioning adults, which muddies the field's ability to study the neurotype and throws off all the statistics.

I am a rhythm game enjoyer, I've genuinely played Cytus. At this point I'd consider the best mobile rhythm game, but I don't play it often as I'm not stuck playing only on a phone that often. Like, only play it on airplanes sometimes. I did fiend it for a bit when I first discovered it (10 years ago already?). Much easier to master than any other rhythm game I've played, might be part of why I don't play it more.

For forests to be a meaningful part of a carbon capture discussion we'd need to be intentionally cutting down and regrowing some trees (which with current technology isn't not something I'm actually suggesting). Once cut down, the tree matter would need to be stuck somewhere that wouldn't return to the carbon lifecycle. All the oil we ever burned into the atmosphere over the last century had been firmly removed from the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years. Essentially all living plant matter draws carbon from the atmosphere/oceans, but most of that carbon goes back to the atmosphere eventually due to all the things that eat plants, the things that eat those things, the things that eat their waste, etc. Most of the chain after plants weren't around when the organic deposits that eventually turned into oil were first laid. Heck, I'd bet none of the exact species that gorged on the carbon rich atmosphere are around now either, they've probably been outcompeted by organisms that adapted to lower carbon environments. Plants didn't even decompose initially, because nothing had evolved to do that.

Basic carbon cycle science aside, in my opinion, bringing up forests when discussing carbon capture is exactly like talking about consumer recycling. It's an easily digestible distraction away from the dozens of solutions that corporations don't want you thinking about. Wikipedia says if we covered all available land in forests we'd sequester 20 years carbon at the current rate of consumption. Bear in mind, humans are using that land for food and housing, and we're making every effort to grow the population even more.

Totally agree. My best trip to date was only planned as far as the hotel of the city we landed in. Even with an unexpected traumatic injury, my partner still agrees it was our best trip. We could stay longer in cities when we wanted to, and leave cities as soon as we felt bored. Compared to other trips where we'd already have hotels booked and felt obligated to leave and stay on those schedules. The worst case was a city hub approach, where we were anchored to an expensive AirBnB. Two day trips in different directions both left me wanting to stay at those destinations.

It's probably a bit more expensive but even if it was 50% more, it was worth it to me at that stage of my life. Probably more like 10% more. Just need to be mindful for some things, there are absolutely places where some days/weeks have no vacancies across a region. Also seems like way more places post COVID require booking in advance, haven't traveled since then but I've heard it makes this approach much less feasible.

Great to hear you challenged conventional wisdom and found improvement. I'm someone with zero experience doing any serious running, but get paid to challenge conventions. The idea that there's some universal pace sounds absurd. Bodies are so different, if there is some magic number it would at least be ratio based. Sports medicine is full of charlatans, and conventional wisdom in sports is constantly being upset by someone that tries something new and succeeds by shocking margins.

Just remember that there are still people alive today that believed in their 20's that it was unsafe for women to run in marathons because it would damage their reproductive organs (early 1970s before women were allowed to compete at all). That people holding an opinion as incorrect as that had a hand in writing the phys ed textbooks that were used over the next 50 years.

Remember the history of world records for the fastest mile, that it was thought impossible to go faster than 4 minutes for more than 50 years until suddenly someone did, and then two more people did the same within a year. We are so prone to believing bullshit, don't let anything set your limits.

That scene in episode two certainly felt unnecessary, maybe a service to the horny viewers. They manage to keep it somewhat believable, where most other shows typically fail to do so. I think the overly interested in the younger characters' romance teachers is weirder than that scene, though I've met people like that and they aren't even exaggerations.

Maybe I just relate to the MC. There's a reluctance to romance that takes me back. Most other anime I've seen way over exaggerate it, or don't play on it at all.

I appreciate your explanation.

I really enjoyed I Parry Everything, weird to see it so low or not even ranked in categories it makes sense for. I also watched No Longer Allowed in Another World and it's way weirder to see it at the top of so many lists. Maybe some of the charm is lost in translation or I just don't appreciate the play on tropes as much.

Makeine is great so far, half way through about to binge the other half. Lovely art, generally avoiding the gross tropes that turn me off with these types of anime. When those tropes are visited it still manages to frame things in a believable way. I need to get my wife to watch it for her take, but it feels like the girls are represented respectfully as their own relatable characters and not strictly some object for the male viewers to desire. Probably still not totally there, but feels nice to see some growth in that direction.

Curious if anyone can compare Makeine to Days with my Stepsister, and Alya Sometimes Hides Her Feelings in Russian. Both of those shows have some face value ick that's keeping me from starting them.

Toxic positivity is just like woke, it can be anything you want it to be!

For real though, not allowing down votes is not toxic positivity. You don't go to an orgy and start yucking everyone's yums. You're not being told you can't dislike things, you just aren't allowed to vocalize it at no cost. And if you do decide to vocalize it in a comment, you may* be kicked out of the orgy because it's a fucking orgy and that's the rules. There's literally no point to it except to shit on others, which you wouldn't do at an IRL orgy**.

*There might be a room for sexual degradation **There might be a room for scat

Toxic positivity is telling someone their negative feelings (not opinions) are invalid. The existence of this term still doesn't make people at an orgy assholes if they tell someone who's bringing down the mood to go away. It's literally a fucking party, don't go there trying to make everyone worse. I could play devil's advocate and say that the act of throwing a feel good only party is toxic positivity as it's just as likely to enable escapism (from bad feelings) as it is to be totally neutral, but fuck that. Sometimes the cure to a bad mood is acknowledging it, and then escaping it.