somewhat unrelated to the topic, but I really liked this part of one of the sentences: “did not not only did not”. it does make sense in the sentence btw.
The share of adults with a higher education degree almost doubled during the author’s teaching career. No surprise a median student is less capable and motivated today.
Many people see the increase in proportion of young people graduating college as a sign that the education system has improved, not that standards have been lowered.
this satisfaction sells. there are companies built on the premise that after the last 1% of effort the sales skyrocket. the marketing narrative of having a complete, high quality product helps to stand out.
I wonder why manila envelopes. does envelope paper have properties uniquely fitted for this kind of modeling, or is it just nice color and suitable weight?
These are folders, not envelopes. They are pretty stiff and hold their shape well. I bet any light card stock would do, but everyone of a certain age has experience with these folders; the fact that they're so basic makes this achievement extra special.
Is age the factor here? feels like they’re just as ubiquitous today as they were when the author was in high school.
I certainly appreciate the idea of crafting something special out of seemingly boring material, but the remark that they were taught to model with this paper in school made me wonder of it does have advantages over basic paper or cardstock.
I think it may be that it's a fairly uniform thickness across manufacturers, whereas if you are getting cardstock from different places you would need to pay attention to paper weights (gsm).
2.8% GDP (and labour productivity) growth doesn’t look that impressive when budget deficit is at 6.4%. A large portion of US GDP is domestic consumption.
modern version of printing money is Quantitative Easing, but the US is in the opposite, Quantitative Tightening mode since 2022. Federal Reserve is essentially taking money out of circulation for the last two years.
On a log scale (you can select this on your graph) we're basically moving on the same trend line as we have been since 1960. Covid caused a big jump but the years of stagnation since then mean we're back to normal.
For that to work Spotify should pay the artist more than it gets from the listeners (bots) who play author’s music. I doubt that’s the case though. Did bots raise track popularity and money was coming from legit listeners? Or did the money come from the advertisers?
reply