orc00

Late work policies like this can be a logistical nightmare at scale. Rather than play the penalty-over-time game, have hard deadlines that are inflexible. Students don't have to engage in mental gymnastics with their scores and instructors don't need to track this stuff.

My view is this: a student can turn in an incomplete assignment. Work they completed get evaluated and graded. Anything not completed gets zero credit. Homework should be an investment in effort over time anyway. Unfortunately, procrastination is a deeply rooted problem that usually kills this.

You've addressed a load-bearing seam.

I agree.

As someone who spends their own time developing open-educational resources (OER), I was extremely limited in what I could do pre-AI. Now, AI has supercharged my ability to elevate my work in ways I could have never done before, particularly in visualizations, interactive widgets, and even images (often SVG for me), all of which are necessary components to the resources I've been developing online since 2020 (COVID-era).

Given that my programming abilities are very limited as well as my time, AI has allowed me to develop the missing pieces to much of what I was creating. When used properly (as an expert in a field using AI as a tool), the end product can be completely transformed and elevated in ways that could never have been. I am so thankful that AI came along just at the right time for me to do the things I could have never accomplished before.

> the One country that dropped an A-bomb

> "only country to use the bomb"

I was confused. Two very different statements but I assume they refer to the US who dropped two A-bombs (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) in anger.

> If you go by the actual years of the legal system to treat your kid as an independent individual, you probably have wrong approach to parenting.

Oh I agree 100%. It's a pragmatic view, not the best one. But the laws are what they are for a reason.

I would argue that there is a duty as a parent to monitor a child's welfare and that would include accessing a smartphone when deemed necessary. When a child turns 18, that duty becomes optional. In this case, these disturbing conversations certainly merit attention. I am not judging the totality of the parents history or their additional actions. I am merely focusing on the phone monitoring aspect. Seventeen doesn't automatically grant you rights that sixteen didn't have. However, at 18, they have the right to find a new place to live and support themselves as they see fit.

> This also sounds dystopian. At 17 you shouldn't "seek to obtain compliance" from your child. It sounds disrespectful and humiliating, not treating your child as an individual.

It is situation dependent. Sometimes immediate compliance is a necessity and the rest of it can be sorted out later. If a child is having conversations about killing their parents, there seems to be an absence of respect already. Compliance, however, can still be obtained.

Taking away a phone from a child is far from meaningless. In fact, it is a very effective way of obtaining compliance if done correctly. I am curious about your perspective.

Furthermore, it is my opinion that a child should not have a smartphone to begin with. It fulfills no critical need to the welfare of the child.