EllieEffingMae

If you're okay with one of these things but not the other, then you are applying a double standard based on a moralisation of sex. Sex as labour is no different than any labour, and there is no criticism of sex work that is whole an complete that does not also criticise the very system you're defending.

By current state of the world, I mean that any research into this topic can't control for all the possible variables. That's why we'd have to take it with such a large grain of salt.

Good try at the "gotcha" though ;D

There was another comment I had just finished reading and merged them in my head. I'll go back through and edit, sorry for any confusion

To address your question about "universal education advocates", they were not the reason that we got it.

Their argument was purely an philosophical one, stating that a well informed society operates better, makes better decisions, ect. And a well educated person can make better decisions for themselves and have a higher quality of life.

The reason that universal education caught on was because large businesses realised that could have more efficient factories if they didn't have to teach everyone to read. Thus college and university because the place where the 'universal education' dream could be realised. Where every person could go and receive an education that would afford them a higher quality of life and allow them to better engage with the world.

Then, factories became more specialised and 90% of universities became slaves to some "industry"

Many universities "computer science" programs are hardly that. Rather they've turned into a coding bootcamp with slightly more math.

I was a little hyperbolic in my original answer. In all honesty, I think it's probably best to continue research in this area. However, in the current state of the world I don't see how that research is especially beneficial. Every finding would have to be taken with such a massive grain of salt that I have a hard time imagining we would find practical applications for it.

If you would be so kind to explain to me why I should believe you, a random person on the internet claiming to be a "scientist" who "spends a lot of time thinking" about this subject, over thousands of peer reviewed research articles and case studies stating that even if genetics is a factor in intelligence then it is so closely tied to other causal factors that it is effectively impossible to control for, then I am happy to listen.

So please, I am begging you, tell me why I should believe you over everyone else.

Would you mind elaborating on exactly how many studies you think are engaging in "statistical trickery"?

Regardless of your credentials, as far as I am aware the scientific consensus on this topic is that genetics is nearly impossible to separate from other causal factors. Mainly other causal factors that we have clearer and more direct evidence of having an influence on cognitive ability.

So, quite frankly, I don't care if you spend a lot of time thinking about it, it's irrelevant. The consensus is clear.

I first encountered this poem on a pamphlet handed out at my uncles funeral. It has remained one of my favourite poems of all time.

When I was younger it read as a sad poem about loving someone more than they love you. Now that I'm an adult, it feels more like a similar vibe to what I experience when I save the energy to make dinner for my partner when they get home from work.

Could you expand on this more? I don't know a lot about GUI programming, but I'd be interested in learning what the current failings are within the desktop space.

As do I! Crafting interpreters is definitely one of the coolest programming books I've ever read. I used it as a blueprint for busing more than one parser in my time :D

You can actually download all their articles as a PDF with a small yearly subscription. If that's not an option I've had good luck with pandoc in the past.