Actually government does. It makes sense to nudge people towards acquiring more skills and they routinely do that. Also, the economy is punishing for those who don't have a college degree (it always was, but perhaps not at this level.)
And how did we reach here? Government policies. I am not saying that these policies were bad. But there can be no denying that government is the major reason why more and more people are going to college. And definitely, if college is not free or subsidised, they will be forced to take loans. Again, because economy is punishing for those who don't have a college education.
I agree the government does nudge people to go to college. The problem is there is a difference between nudging people and arresting people. Nobody is putting a gun to your head requiring you to go to college.
I agree the economy is set up against non college educated people. We should work to change that. Promoting trade schools as legitimate alternatives to college might help. I am not sold that would solve much though. A lot of young people don't want to get into the trades. How many 18 year olds who just graduated high school want to be a plumber?
One thing I will say is that I don't think it is solely the government to blame. Companies require degrees for jobs that don't need it. They probably do it since there is a massive amount of people with degrees so they may as well get one of them to work for the company. We need companies to step up and stop requiring degrees. At the company I work at there are people with degrees who are working in data entry.
I may be mistaken, but I have found the Microsoft Edge to have done considerable catching up. In my Mac and on PC, it beats Chrome anyday in performance and ease of use. I understand that Microsoft have reasons to invest heavily on a modern, nimble browser. But do we have any other reasons - like trying to conquer a new market etc. Behind this?
This is true for Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or any other religion that has happened to be caught in the political machinations of the enterprising state.
I am reminded of St. Brigit [1], who was a Celtic goddess who was co-opted by the Catholic Church. Her pastoral associations have stayed intact, with the cultural 'need' for the deity protected, the co-opting makes a lot more sense.
Mughal Emperor Akbar's effort to synthesise Islam, Hinduism and other Indic beliefs to great Din-i-Ilahi [2] is yet another prominent example of hegemonic powers using their social clout to increase soft power by co-opting the beliefs of the locals.
The Millet system of Ottoman Empire [3], was geared towards 'respecting' local customs, personal law and protecting local systems of authority in lieu of their support to the Ottoman yoke. This was later adopted by the British in India and their other colonies, where they went to great lengths to establish Madrasas (Islamic education centres) [4] and Sanskrit colleges [5] to further this.
These time lapse videos are an incredible tool to teach kids about plant growth. It was really hard for me at school to visualise plants as living beings and their "life" was always an abstract concept.
The channel has some more interesting videos. I wish someone did videos to demonstrate phototropism, hydrotropism etc. It would be much cooler to have those videos around, which could be used to explain such concepts to kids.
An alternate line of thought - do we need Electric vehicles to do all that? If we could reliably transition mass of passenger transport and daily commute options to electricity, that alone could crack the deal. We needn't eliminate fossil fuel driven systems completely. It can still have some use cases, which on a planet scale could be made viable through a select oil extraction infrastructure across the globe. A scaled down fossil fuel economy with electric replacing mass of private and commercial vehicle use looks like the most likely scenario for the future, imho.
Absolutely the approach that is needed: net zero, not zero. We cannot completely decarbonize the long tail of fossil fuel uses - but we can create a mostly renewable energy mix. It is unlikely that air and space travel for instance will ever be decarbonized - but net emissions can be reduced or eliminated. The same goes for manufacturing processes and materials science. It's not an all or nothing proposition.
I think fossil fuels are enough of an ideological rallying point that they're going to be targeted no matter how niche and justified their use is (see also: asbestos). We're likely to wind up with plat based synthetic fuels in those use cases to make the ideologues happy (see also: Brazil, though they use synthetic fuels for a different reason) even if that's not the best/cheapest way to make those use cases net zero.
> even if that's not the best/cheapest way to make those use cases net zero
It's likely to be for the foreseeable future given that net zero otherwise requires carbon capture equal to the extracted fossil fuels, and we seem to be some way off effective carbon capture let alone cost effective carbon capture.
It may sound a bit of place in a forum like HN, but I have a point to make here. What you feel is a fairly common phenomenon and I know a ton of people who aren't happy at this setting. I would like to suggest joining a political grouping and study the in-group dynamics.
From the background you have stated, it is highly unlikely that you have joined a political movement or seen its inner workings at any point in time. You don't have to be a politician, but you can join the team of one. You can make yourself a lot useful. You wouldn't realise the huge value a website or a robust analytics infrastructure for a local/provincial level politician. Or your could collaborate in strategy, outreach, electioneering etc.
The best thing about a political movement is that it derives people from various background, age groups, ethnicities (I know that this is not true for many political groupings, but you could choose based on your taste) and experiences. They are generally very much driven and at least care for a cause. Once you bond, you'll see that the in-group dynamics and response to questions like general ethics, economics etc shifts from the advertised positions. This shift in dynamics is what makes you politically aware and literate. It is a great liberating experience. In movements that are around for long, you'll see yourself interacting with a lot of people as if you have known them for years - sometimes like family members. This is a great way to connect with people from different classes, backgrounds and develop the kind of empathy that will help us appreciate ourselves better.
I realise that the socio-political situation in different nations are different. But if you can do this, this will definitely light up the mood. It is also a great contribution to society - but you don't have to look at it that way. Political activity is a great addition to our lives, as many people across the generations have found out. Do give it a try.
Agree that depression diagnosis might be wrong. But the therapy is incredibly effective against all the symptoms he has described in details. Therapy is not just for depressed people. I have met different therapists and I was never diagnosed of clinical depression. However, I have faced many of the symptoms that he has described. It makes sense to meet a therapist (if he can afford it) and take their help. Also, in many Indian cities, therapists are generally a way to many social circles, for they act as aggregators. I think it is different in other places, but meeting a therapist (a good one) and taking professional help is the easiest and most preferable route when you hit a rut.
Honestly, a lot of people who see therapists do keep going. A friend put it to me this way: you're paying money for perspective and objectivity, and this is especially true for people in relationships. It also takes time and effort to find a therapist who is a good fit for you. If the therapist is not a good fit for you, then there will be little benefit.
I know, I'm pointing out that trains of thought similar to "I was unsure of therapy but liked it and kept going" are not going to be universal because maybe there is some underlying thing that makes you more likely to be helped by therapy.
Uncharitably I've seen this framed as something like "therapists only help people with simple problems."
> Touting therapy as incredible effective is at least a little dishonest. I know very many people who saw no benefit from it despite great expense.
When someone recommends therapy, just treat it like you would any other recommendation that doesn’t need to trigger a “that doesn’t apply universally!” response. Nobody is forcing anyone to do therapy. Many people find it helpful. Many people don’t. Still quite reasonable for GP to say “therapy helps” with an implied “in my opinion.”
Except in this instance OP specifically mentioned therapy as advice he was not looking for. So it's odd and paternalistic if not downright rude that the #1 comment advises just that.
..among many other things. And they didn’t say they didn’t want therapy as advice, they specifically did ask for advice beyond therapy but that doesn’t mean they are going to be offended by someone saying “but also, if you aren’t in therapy, try it.” And calling this “paternalistic” when someone is saying they hate their life and is asking for advice is completely uncalled for. Your overly-strong anti-therapy stance is noted but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the OP and the commenter you are responding to.
It is the very definition of paternalistic to tell someone who wants something other than x, x, and "for their own good".
And I am neither anti-therapy nor pro-therapy (only a simpleton would have an unnuanced position on such a complex topic). Next time please refrain from attempting to put words into my mouth, it is disrespectful and adds nothing of value to your comment.
> meeting a therapist (a good one) and taking professional help is the easiest and most preferable route when you hit a rut.
"Professional help" is not always positive. If you have internal issues to fix, external help may or may not be the right thing for you. There's absolutely no standard approach for this kind of things.
> a therapist (a good one)
So what they end up with a bad one, was that good advice?
I have maintained my blog (http://www.hashin.me) for the last 8 years without ever trying to monetize it (I am 28 now). I have written hundreds of articles there, about a lot of topics that have caught my attention. I have perhaps written hundreds of thousands of words on the internet and never earned a rupee (dollar) from them in all these years. But that's what made me who I am. I would still keep doing that. What I make at work and at business is the product of the great education that internet gave me. I live a life where I am always online, but the ads simply fail to influence my decisions. And I spend most of my time on places like HN, which is representative of the good ole internet. As someone has already mentioned in this thread, the internet hasn't changed much. It is us; but if we know what we are doing, we can definitely choose the reality we are living in.
Thanks! I'm probably not going to be a regular reader but sites like what yours seems to be brings me happiness.
It is the kind of content I enjoy finding in a search or with marginalia explore.
Edit: I too have one of these sites were I write about things that interest me, technical and political. I also have no ads but I enjoy the writing (and don't write when I don't enjoy it, since luckily it doesn't matter) and I enjoy it when people get something useful out of it.
That sounds super interesting! The results will depend upon the kind of information this database provides about each paper. We don't know yet the kind of processing each paper goes through and the quality of the "description" in the database. Assuming that it is good enough, this would be a really interesting project to work on.
This is an interesting side of the problem I have never thought about. Is this boredom and other psychological stresses responsible for the sexual offences committed by deployed troops?
I am not alleging anything on any particular nation, but coming from a developing country where its own internally deployed troops known to commit a lot of sexual violence, I am curious about the underlying causes. And if there is a way through which civilian governments can control it.
> Is this boredom and other psychological stresses responsible for the sexual offences committed by deployed troops?
I am really not the expert to provide a qualified answer to any of this. I can only speak to my own observations. My perspective is that of a US Army soldier. Everything that follows is only my personal opinion.
I have been deployed three times and only one of those times was sexual assault a significant concern. When a certain NATO ally left the area the problem essentially evaporated overnight. That change happened shortly after we arrived at the area. I am unaware of what that the motivating factor was.
Coincidentally, shortly before that NATO ally left (days before I arrived) there was also a notable incident. A seemingly unarmed victim was attacked at night by two people in civilian clothes. One of these people served as a distraction while the second clubbed the victim in the head from behind and then drug the victim to a nearby area that muffled sound. Shortly after that the victim regained consciousness and pulled out a very small knife hidden on their person. The victim was able to carve up one of the assailants legs leaving the second assailant to pull him to safety. The victim then walked to the hospital to be treated for the head injury and there reported the offense. I have no idea if this defensive action contributed to the immediate decline in following sexual assault incidents.
According to the documentary "The Invisible War" the US military forces have had a problem with sexual assault much higher than the comparative civilian world. The documentary does not directly or officially indicate a cause, but to me it looked like the documentary spelled out a specific cause: weak leadership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_War
> And if there is a way through which civilian governments can control it.
Never tolerate or condone sexual assault in any form. Always investigate reported incidents. Also, and this is important, punish people who are proven to be aware of incidents but fail to report them.
And how did we reach here? Government policies. I am not saying that these policies were bad. But there can be no denying that government is the major reason why more and more people are going to college. And definitely, if college is not free or subsidised, they will be forced to take loans. Again, because economy is punishing for those who don't have a college education.