officehero

Year 3626 Edward Gibbon II picks this up like a case study in late Roman Empire decline. He would likely not blame screen overuse, burnout, rising costs/inflation, shyness, loss of communication skills (as mentioned in this chat). These things are symptoms rather than primary causes.

Russia is a bad example due to its current international reputation. On your second point, would an example of this be an oral exam where the student has tiny hidden earbuds? Outrageous but you're probably right it's going to get worse.

As a former flipped classroom student I can attest to the effectiveness of "exposure". It requires some skill to pull off: the first time someone is exposed it should be very lenient and then get gradually harsher. The risk of embarrassment in front of the class can be a very strong motivator if utilized right.

One way to do this is by going mobile-internet only with limited data. It doesn't stop doomscrolling on sites like this, but it does stop TV and online gaming and that could be very helpful for many people.

But they need to explain why the range is so large. Did they witness whales at the site on day 2? It's unnecessarily ambiguous.

"House of Asterion" is Borges's main labyrinth story as far as I can remember. "Library of Babel", "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbits Tertius", "The Immortal" and "The Aleph" are my favorites. His collected works fit in a single book and is a great example of quality beats quantity.

> draw the graphs she needs for her papers and then goes looking for the data she needs to support it

This is a vague statement and it's super important to be precise when blaming someone. I think what you meant is - sketch out the graphs with patterns that support the alternative hypothesis/interesting result and then look for data that make the 'real' patterns look like those in the sketch?

Like others have pointed out, there are other options in life than work at Meta. Would you have worked at Krupp or Mitsubishi during WW2 if they paid enough, compared to say cleaning toilets?

I'd down vote this if I could.

This is the type of hen-egg dialectic that takes me straight to evolutionary theory. My guess is that the 'standard human tribe', ~200 strong, needs some people to be up at night. But since we don't have dedicated day/night humans, we all get this shared mess of a genome 'you need to be up at night sometimes'.

Burden of proof is on the other party. In one sentence the opinion can be summarized as "if you want increased probability of child becoming a great artist you need great commitment." That's a null hypothesis.

Don't have a book but here's some quick thoughts: 1. Biographies on, e.g., Chinese pianist Lang Lang. When he was ~9 he 'retired' (it's an extreme case but telling, can recommend). 2. If you want formal/mathematical/CS perspective, study Reinforcement Learning (e.g. Rick Sutton).

You missed the point.

I'm surprised at how few parents understand what it takes to create a great artist. You need to start when they're 5 (or preferably younger), put them in a workshop with great artists/pedagogues etc. (costly!) where they work full time (forget school), evaluate potential and there is a tiny chance they themselves will become great. Annoyed by parents talking about their 5 year olds as "too young" or when they recommend their teenager to 'pursue their dream' when they don't provide a fraction of above. It's still possible but odds go down dramatically.