Kids shouldn't have to be surrounded by "violent screaming children" period. I fail to see what giftedness has to do at all with whether or not you deserve to not have this as a learning environment.
Some kids have more difficulty with it than others, and in particular it interferes a great deal more with reading a book than with running around screaming.
Which is why some countries like the US have encoded into law IEP and 504 plans for children with (among other things) sensory needs, regardless of giftedness status.
> How do you teach political science, history, basically any social science, or even freaking literature, while doing that? Even if it only required you to be "neutral" (which is not what it says), that would be impossible.
By keeping it descriptive instead of prescriptive. As to whether staff should be allowed to make prescriptive statements, I think there's an argument for both sides. Personally, it irked me when professors used the time I paid for to "enlighten" me about their personal worldview during time that could've been used for learning about the subject and leaving the student to decide what to make of it.
> By keeping it descriptive instead of prescriptive.
First of all, what it says is that they aren't allowed to talk about those matters at all. Read it.
Second, even if that were not the case, I guarantee that if you write what you think is a "descriptive" syllabus, there are a bunch of other people who'll think it's extremely biased political indoctrination.
A friend of mine is an atmospheric science professor who publishes research on climate change modeling. His work is descriptive. He regularly gets hate mail from conservatives.
Another friend of mine is a medieval history professor. When they teach intro courses they discuss more than just european perspectives on medieval history. They regularly get students complaining that their essays on why the crusaders should have killed every single muslim person get bad grades.
Being descriptive is nowhere near sufficient to keep conservatives from screaming at professors.
I believe they're speaking within the scope of the Bayesian analysis. We could interpret games outside of the winning streak as evidence to whether he's a cheater or not. Instead, I believe they are looking at the question of "given this winning streak in particular, what's the probability of him cheating in this set of games"?
They start with a prior (very low probability), I'm assuming they use the implied probabilities from the Elo differences, and then update that prior based on the wins. That's enough to find the posterior they're interested in, without needing to look outside the winning streak.
> "given this winning streak in particular, what's the probability of him cheating in this set of games"
I think the problem lies in the antecedent. Given all chess tournaments played, how often would we observe such a winning streak on average? If the number of winning streaks is near the average, we have no indication of cheating. If it is considerably lower or higher, some people were cheating (when lower, than the opponents).
Then the question is, whether the numbers of winning streaks of one person are unusually high. If we would for example expect aprox. 10 winning streaks, but observe 100, we can conclude that aprox. 90 were cheating. The problem with this is that the more people cheat, the more likely we are to suspect an honest person of cheating as well.
Again, this would be different if the number of winning streaks for a particular person were unusually high.
His performance in games outside the streak is relevant to the prior of his being a cheater, which in turn is highly relevant to how calculate p(cheater | this streak).
If I'm understanding it correctly, the FCC didn't actually do anything here. The FCC chairman made, at worst, a threat. ABC immediately pulled the show, and news article's link this to license approvals and such.
But if the FCC actually strong armed the media due to political reasons, would it stand up in the courts? Disney has more than enough money to fight it. One possibility is that they're using this as an opportunity to cut the show, which maybe they were leaning towards anyway. It effectively redirects blame to the FCC instead of the company that actually made the decision.
How often is there not some upcoming deal with some media company that has political content? It's not unusual at all, yet ABC is completely absolved of any responsibility in this case apparently.
What explains not changing jobs because you find it distressing and claiming that you're being paid below what you're worth? It seems like if that were true, then you'd be motivated to find a job that pays market rate. And if you couldn't, then you could at least find another job that pays less than market rate, like your current job, but isn't so distressing.
Maybe these people are trying to keep their skills and degrees honed somehow in a bad market, rather than going straight for a less-distressing-but-also-lower-paying job that does nothing to their skillset.
Wikipedia has a history of how lead was known to cause problems, dating back to antiquity. Some excerpts:
> Dioscorides, a Greek physician who lived in the 1st century AD, wrote that lead makes the mind "give way".[121][274]
> Lead poisoning from rum was also noted in Boston.[291] Benjamin Franklin suspected lead to be a risk in 1786
> The first legislation in the UK to limit pottery workers' exposure to lead was included in the Factories Act Extension Act in 1864, with further introduced in 1899. William James Furnival (1853–1928), research ceramist of City & Guilds London Institute, appeared before Parliament in 1901 and presented a decade's evidence to convince the nation's leaders to remove lead completely from the British ceramic industry.
I don't know much about forever chemicals. Is there the same level of evidence as we had for lead?
> I don't know much about forever chemicals. Is there the same level of evidence as we had for lead?
No. We have observational data in humans (which is problematic for drawing conclusions, since PFAS contamination tends to correlate with industry and population), and animal models, mostly in non-mammalian species.
As you correctly note, lead was known to be toxic since long before leaded gasoline -- the "question" was more about the delivery mechanism (auto exhaust) than the toxicity of the element itself.
This MoM increase was higher than about 70% of previous changes on the same interval. It's not so extreme that we can reasonably infer from it a looming disaster. Looking at the 7 month change (year to date), 63% of the time you'd see a higher increase than this. The "direction of travel is up", but that's almost always the case.
I don't like the idea of even more expectations for tips, since we're already tip-fatigued. Despite that, I'd rather have less rules and taxes and have them actually enforced than have a situation where people pocket the cash portion of their tips untaxed anyway, which only punishes honest people.
It's pernicious. I've been to places that add "service charge" by default now to relieve tipping, then still give you the option to tip on top of that, which some people do because they think maybe the service charge isn't going to the server (in the places I've been to, it is). Tipping needs to die and it's frustrating to see it starting to proliferate in some European countries.
With a small amount of sadness, this is the conclusion I'm starting to end up with. Yes I think waitresses and service workers should make more money. But tipping in the US has become opaque, expanding everywhere, and the expectations around tipping seem to be getting ratcheted up constantly. A business is not viable if customers have to pay your employees separately. I'm close to hitting the nuclear button and just defaulting to zero.
My bright line rule is that I won't tip before service is rendered. If I'm asked before, I can't judge the service, and therefore making a tip decision is impossible.
Let's see... two tiny countries that specialize in finance, a city-state that is the historic trade hub for the region, another that is the historic gambling hub for the region, and a low-population country that won the oil lottery and has been smart enough not to let its residents get high on their own supply, thus avoiding the worst of "the resource curse."
I was in Japan last month, tipped 4 times, once it ended up awkward with the waiter insisting me to take it back, the other 3 times they accepted it gladly and thanked.
Yes this is so cringe, but it makes me kind of laugh. Of all the things the Western world historically imposed on Asia, it makes me laugh this is what made me feel is most cringeworthy as of recent.
Please keep your tip customs out of our culture. Next time just say thank you several times to show you appreciate them.
I don't know if that's true for Japan. The only non-Japanese folks I knew, over there, were Chinese, and they weren't exactly the types of folks that waited tables.
In recent years Japan's immigrant population increased by 500 to 1000 people *every single day*.
Many of them end up in hospitality, especially in touristic places, due to different reasons, but very importantly, immigrants from south Asia generally speak English fluently, something Japanese people rarely do.
I've seen plenty of "japanese" restaurants in Shinjuku where not a single member of the staff was japanese.
Another place where you're gonna see plenty of immigrants are all convenience stores.
> I've been to places that add "service charge" by default now to relieve tipping, then still give you the option to tip on top of that, which some people do because they think maybe the service charge isn't going to the server
This may be the case some of the time, but from what I’ve seen and heard…
During COVID, everyone put out the tip jar. It turns out that some folks are willing to give in spots that are not “traditional” tipping situations.
Some folks just have extra money, and they are happy to share their wealth with others. This is doubly true in hard times.
Tips are one way to do that, and some folks do that with extra generosity.
I will also add that people seem to be more than happy to tip/give extremely generously to folks who “make their day”. Maybe it’s a great ride share driver, or a great massage therapist, or an online streamer, or whatever. Some people seem to be more than willing to tip folks who bring them joy.
All that said, if that’s not your style, just click skip and move on. Most people understand and won’t judge.
There are a handful of entitled people who will try to guilt people into typing in non-traditional tipping spots. Just don’t go back to those places if at all possible — those people suck.
The most frustrating thing has been the tip prompt that happens before service has been rendered. A tip is based on service. If you haven't received the service yet, the fuck is the tip meant to reflect? That you succeeded at breathing?
I have a diametrically opposed take. I prefer tipping before.
It's my way of giving someone a little appreciation because they're (typically) doing a job I wouldn't want to do myself.
It's got virtually nothing to do with the quality of service I get. I always tip the same amount even when service is bad. There have only been maybe 3 exceptions in my nearly 3 decades of adult life.
I'm fortunate to be able to afford a little bit of generosity for service people, so I do it.
Edit: I should add that, in places where there's a customary tipping practice (eg: US restaurants), I tip above the customary amount no questions asked. The "generosity" is the amount above customary.
The problem stems less from how it might have originated and more from what it results in.
Multiple times I've been travelling for dinner with coworkers and someone notes "oh, tip is already included here" (be it the group size, the way the place works normally, or whatever reason) and then half the table starts redoing the receipt because they were tricked into it. This example highlights it's not always about intent, work already has a set policy of how to tip (i.e. no generosity or etc involved), people are just getting plain tricked into doing something else instead. Regardless - it's successful in the growth of tips, so it spreads.
Similarly, "just click skip and move on" puts the friction in the wrong direction - especially if you're not alone. It's great that it can apply a lot of the time, but the problem is it has friction, sometimes strong, in certain scenarios - again, this friction is only weighted towards the growth of tips.
Lastly, the vast majority of people have some level of desire to be fair, even if they don't want to be generous. Any uncertainty which can be created in the tipping process ("am I supposed to tip here?", "is the tip in the service charge, if so how much goes to the person/how much were they expecting to get in total?", "is the recommended tip on the receipt more than I expected", and so on) tends to push people to tip more than their generosity alone would have inclined, and it's really quite unfair to say the solution is to just click skip and hope all will understand each time.
Unfortunately, there is pretty much nothing pushing in the opposite direction. Your options as an individual, or even sizable portion of society, are to shit on the wait staff's income about it in hopes they complain enough that management gives them a better salary (that'd take quite the movement). Everything about this side has the exact opposite incentive pressures as the above, and so whether particularly generous folks are a factor or not... there's really nothing that's going to get done about it for the typical person.
Maybe we can start some place in the middle of "being able to walk into a place and understand what the cost will be up front", such as including tax in the base prices of things, and it'll open more doors about tipping for the same consideration. Until then, we all are stuck with dealing with it.
"Your options as an individual, or even sizable portion of society, are to shit on the wait staff's income"
My primarily option is to multiply the estimated cost of going to the restaurant by 1.3 (tip+tax) and make my decision about going there based on that figure, not on published menu prices.
That's a good estimate for an individual visit as of today but is precisely the kind of thing that which has resulted in "normal" tips going from +.1 to +.15 to +.2 as the years go on (erring too low has more friction than erring too high, and if something else raises the amount traditionally tipped somewhere then "normal" for this will tend to adjust upwards in a large group).
Yeah, this is going to incentivize businesses to try and make as much of their employees' pay come from tips, which means consumers will be expected to pay more tips, which is the opposite direction I want it to go.
Bluetti hit the "are you actually fucking serious?" level for me with the tips. They ask you for a % tip when you order online from them. No employee contact, no consultation. I just added a $2k item to the basket, tried to pay and got an invitation to tip extra.
