But remember - Malthusianism was debunked, and the planet can support many more people. As long as you never think about environmentalism and population size at the same time - the only way to hold two conflicting ideas at once. I wonder if there's a succinct term for it..
"Mr. Gözükara tweeted on October 29 that it’s “a proven fact right now that Israel killed many of its citizens,” doing so for “territorial expansion.”"
It's very in line with the current zeitgeist to dismiss a thoughtful piece on the perils of compromising personal values and friendships for the sake of social climbing, as a mere defense of classism. Gone from public discussion are virtue, integrity, loyalty. There is only class struggle.
Did you get the impression he meant labour organizers or ambitious but honest entrepreneurs when he spoke of scoundrels? Or, given his emphasis on friendship, did he mean those who would sell-out their co-workers? Do you really mean to defend the "financial upward mobility" that comes from, say, withholding the health hazards of a product?
That last bit is a tremendous stretch and you're doing your shoulder joint no good in reaching that far.
No, there's more to it than that, but like I said, at worst, it has a kind of "stay in your lane" feel to it. Not in the snotty "know your role" sense, no, rather a more insidious method is substituted, in which, by not striving to enter the Inner Ring, you're rewarded with some kind of nebulous peer respect. Very a much a "meek will inherit" sort of thing, and often untrue.
Take the Tolstoy bit that was part of the piece. The general is ignored. But what if the general had something important to say, something of tactical or strategic value? Well, it's ignored. I'll counter with HST: "Politics is the art of controlling your environment." Wouldn't it be prudent for that general, should he recognize his situation, to strive for entry into the Inner Ring and then be heard? It would be. Lewis does not address this. Instead, one is to take consolation that one was at least correct, but unheard, as the Inner Ring steers the ship off course. You're even suppose to hope that other people, also outsiders, will recognize your track record and your value.
Personally, I haven't found much consolation in that outsider position at all. Instead I have watched the members of the Inner Ring sail off to ever-better positions, failing upward. Rather than attempting to change my position, I am to accept it and some reward will be dispensed unto me. I have yet to see it.
Throughout the piece he cautions against abandoning friends, principles, and of striving for the inner circle for its own sake, and for greed. It is a very uncharitable reading to then recast this caution and awareness as a general prohibition against entering the inner ring for any purpose. Nothing in the piece gave me the impression he is cautioning against, e.g., an upstart entrepreneur entering various inner rings to grow his sales, or a general vying for political power to help his country. It is the inverse he warns of - a general staying silent, or becoming a yes-man against his better judgement, to gain social standing at the expense of his troops.
You're right, he spends few words extolling the usefulness of the inner ring [1] - presumably he thought it obvious, especially to his audience at King's College. Probably seeing greed and sycophancy as bigger dangers than lack of ambition or too much sincerity, he naturally warned against the former. Like an old captain warning against storms instead of giving encouraging words about how many fish there are to catch. I wouldn't begrudge him that.
[1] Few, but not none: It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.
> What is the better solution that retains the anti-theft capabilities of the device?
Include the unlock key in the box the device was sold in, and in Apple's database. Tech-savvy users can, possessing the key, change it. Tech-unsavvy users can behave the same as they have now, even if they lost the key, as long as they didn't change it. So long as they don't carry the key with the device, all the anti-theft remains.
The freedom-respecting solution is literally trivial. The only reason it is not implemented is because Apple likes owning your devices.
> Higher-income households reside in distinct neighborhoods and send their children to better schools than low-income households.
But state and federal funding supplements local tax school funding to achieve approximately equal funding per pupil, and the US is 4th in the world (behind only Luxembourg, Norway, and Iceland) in per-student primary education spending [1]. So what makes those schools "good"?
Based on my admittedly small sample size: involved parents who “give a shit” (and have time and resources to do so).
We’re in Cambridge, MA (one high school for the entire city). I bet the correlations among parents’ academic achievement, household income, parental involvement, and kids’ scholastic accomplishment are all positive or strongly positive. (There cannot be a difference in school, being only one.)
Funding is obviously a bullshit metric because per-student spending adjusted PPP in many developing countries's private school systems is a fraction of that in the US and those students start farther behind and end farther in front.
Why should an arbitrary child whose parents are paying 100,000 INR in India end up with better start to finish improvement over an arbitrary child in the US whose government is spending $17,000? Here are the numbers adjusted to match:
100,000 INR converts to $1,202
India's PPP coefficient is 3.5x
Therefore, 100,000 INR is equivalent to $4,200 in the US.
A quarter of the spending and the start-to-finish delta is much higher there. The reason we can't do that here is multifaceted, but maybe the answer is looking to how their schools do it.
The success traits that put high income earners together gets reenforced with their kids. Move this group (and remove existing students) to a less funded school and they will do better than the kids who got moved to a high funded school. You can't buy parents, social pressures and genes.
2/3 of your metrics are fully accounted for by disposable income differences, the other by free time difference. Advantages accumulate; you’ve discovered privilege. It’s generational. Good job.
So it is your claim that Blacks still lie about their race on the census, in significant numbers, because they are afraid of... what, exactly? Except in rare cases, race is obvious on sight, so I don't see what they would gain by giving a different answer on the census.
Of course you presumably have a good source backing up your claim that Blacks are afraid to identify their race on the census, and trustworthy alternate statistics counting the racial makeup of the US?
48% of the US, including 35% of those self-described as liberal, and 25% of those self-described as extremely liberal, are nazis? What a flexible (and useful!) term. I'm so glad it's only ever applied to my opponents.
I don't know why you're singling out the middle-aged or men, but in the 1950s the US was in fact 87.5% non-Hispanic White [1], so all other groups accounted for only 12.5%.
Much like the EU patent convention that also excludes computer programs as such, programs for generic computers routinely get patented. It seems it is the opinion of esteemed patent judges that "as such" means it only applies to programs that do nothing other than exist as computer programs, in some pure, Platonic sense. If they actually do anything, they are no longer "as such" (but if they do nothing, that is not a patentable invention anyway, software or not).
In other words, it is the learned and wise decision of the honored judiciary that the entire sentence excluding computer programs is there just for decoration. Like flavor text on a Magic card. As a layperson I naturally defer to their expert judgement.
So libel on top of computer sabotage.