Google AI responses are generally crap and annoying. I've gone back to DDG or if I need some context - very specific guidance for claude/chatgpt. Goodle's AI is generally inadequate or wrong without significant clarification.
My step daughter graduated this last week (high school). Watching the curriculum over the last 4 years, they had 5-8 validictorian (all a's) and 6-8 salutarians (sp?) (all a's one b). They would have been at the 3.x level in my high school 25 years ago. The rigor in high school is no longer there, community college is adopting to the lesser expectation as well.
Because it’s a physical mechanism that has a unique feel that modern switches don’t mimic.
I like lots of keyboards and switches but this is a unique switch with deep historical roots that has been brought back to life by an enthusiast. I think it’s worth supporting (if you can afford it) on general principle.
MX switches are the entry point of the "mechanical keys". You can go into way too many rabbit holes beyond consumer brands like Das Keyboard.
There are topre capacitive switches (HHKB, Realforce etc) , buckling spring switches like the ones in this post (& older IBM model M, Unicomp), Alps switches (older mac keyboards, matias), and an endless selection of MX compatible customized switches. All with different tactility and sound profiles.
Merely "having mechanical keys" is a very basic criteria especially for enthusiasts who might have very specific requirements and preference for how their keyboards should feel and sound. This one is mainly targeted towards those enthusiasts.
I think it's because ALPS stopped making keyswitches when rubber domes completely took over the market in the early 2000s, and Cherry kept making MX switches. When the mechanical keyboard market started back up in the early 2010s, Cherry was there and ALPS wasn't. I agree it's a shame. I think we've seen clicky switches become a niche and most of the market switch to linear switches mainly because MX style clicky switches are fundamentally incapable of feeling as tactile or having as deep of a click as ALPS style switches due to how they're shaped and how the components are arranged internally. I don't blame everybody for preferring linear if "clicky" means "high pitched plasticky sound and a barely perceptible bump in the middle of the key travel". At least Matias still makes modern ALPS style switches, they're one of the best clicky options available today.
> At least Matias still makes modern ALPS style switches, they're one of the best clicky options available today.
Would be great if they don't have chatter issues.. I'm typing on my third matias and all three started chattering after some use. Their quiet switches are the best tactile ones I've ever tried. Sound so nice too.
Their clicky switches (Matias Click) don't have this issue, I think it's only on the tactile ones (Matias Quiet Click). Agreed that it's a shame they've been selling them for so long and haven't worked out how to make them not chatter.
As an American, no. Well aside from - yes a significant part thrives on seeing others than them suffer. Years ago, I spent multiple times a year at a B&B on the Hilo side of the big island. The host was one of the last "Grand Dame's" of Hilo. She was a cattle rancher that knew Roosevelt; her husband had been a friend of Linus Pauling. She did hikes in her 70s and 80s few in those ages can do now.
She was grandfathered under a form of medical insurance - I think older Blue Cross/Blue Shield - none can access now. At one point, the US did have better health care than we do at the moment. The fcking idiot boomers (including my parents) bought into the BS from Nixon, Reagan, etc. Hey - (good or bad) - let's stop allowing one to write off debt, but allow companies to do so, etc.
This country does have it's head up it's ass and a significant number blame everyone but themselves and how they vote.
We pay more (as a country) by a lot* and get significantly less for our medical coverage. Want to go self employed with a family of 3? Want a PPO? $4-6k/mo in California right now. Deductibles will be high.
In California, if you have insurance, you’re paying for everyone else that doesn’t. Homeless guy wants to spend half his time in the ER for fake claims? You’re paying. Some methhead has a fast heartbeat? Roll an ambulance and rush him to the ER.
Single mom gets hit by a red light runner? Straight to the ER. A guy who works two crappy jobs to keep a roof over his head has a heart attack? Straight to the ER. Fuck this logic of "I'm only paying for people who I think don't deserve it". There's plenty of people who genuinely need the help.
I never said they shouldn't get care, but each of those people should pay for insurance to cover the costs of the care they receive.
The single mom, by law, has to have car insurance, but doesn't need health insurance in CA because she will be treated for free. Same with heart attack guy: sounds like he has no assets, so he's insulated from the costs of his care and lifestyle, a clear moral hazard.
People can't always pay for insurance. The single mom wasn't driving, by the way. You seem make a lot of assumptions about people you don't know. And do you know what happens to the mom when shes's discharged from the hospital with chronic pain? She can't keep a steady job because her pain and her trauma keep her up at night, and shes's forced to call out too frequently. I think the real moral hazard is not taking care of the people around you, and not realizing that the worst possible thing that can happen to you is happening to someone every day, all the time, and those people sometimes need help. This world is full of fucked up, terrible things, and if you're going to sit there and complain that the homeless guy you know nothing about is trying to get a free sandwich and a warm bed on your dime, and that makes you angry, maybe you should look inward and around you and try to figure out what actually matters in life. I'm sure the people who are actually taking your money love you for blaming the homeless.
The world is full of bad events. That's why we created insurance to help reduce the risk of these uncertain losses.
The single mom, had she bought health insurance, would see a portion of her medical costs covered in part because of the premiums she paid. The $10K out of pocket max under the ACA is onerous, but against the $100K+ potential costs of her ER/ICU/surgery bills, that's fair to everyone else who maintains insurance. You should help pay for what you use.
If you now want to stretch the scenario to all these other contingencies, good news: she's covered by SSI which she would've been paying into if she worked. She also has financial recourse against this driver that hit her (and their insurance that they are legally required to carry, even though CA loves to not enforce this), assuming she wasn't at fault in the accident.
You're right that there's "plenty of people who genuinely need the help", but you also need to help yourself. Pay for insurance, don't do drugs, don't smoke, don't be an alcoholic, and don't eat yourself into Type 2 diabetes. If you do that, you've just slashed all the biggest financial and health risks that are controllable, while saving yourself money and improving your quality of life.
I read your comment in full before responding, it would have been kind of you to return the courtesy. Unless you're an ai, then cheese eric hair purple toast
It'd be great if you could argue in support of your straw-single-mom, rather than give up and type literal gibberish. But hey, I'm sure the takers living off your neighbor's work appreciate your complacency.
>It'd be great if you could argue in support of your straw-single-mom, rather than give up and type literal gibberish
This is a really great demonstration of my point. You clearly don't care about the person the other poster highlighted, and feel not even a remote social obligation to assist. I don't think either of you are arguing from like unobstructed economic truths or whatever, just demonstrating where your lines are morally. For you, normal American, the system is working perfectly. Its designed to be punishing for your neighbors. The thought terminating cliches around whether they deserve your tax dollars are part of the design to help unclutter your worldview while you spin economic wheels for the tax man. That tax money you pay belongs to Israel and not 1 cent should possibly ever accidentally help a fellow American which would be an unmitigated social calamity.
And the other guy doesn't care as much as he makes out either. Its not like he is trying to change the government or whatever, hes just arguing with someone for internet points, points that are absolutely not redeemable for healthcare for anyone.
Its honestly a well designed and implemented healthcare system and both of you are getting exactly what you want out of it. .
Israel aid, while unnecessary in my view, is a total non-sequitur. The MOU was $3B a year, while foodstamp's administrative costs alone are 2x that. Foodstamps on the whole were about 30x the aid. I'm fine to cut spending in Israel (and any other foreign aid) dollar for dollar with handouts (or hell, even just tie the handouts to drug tests and education/work/volunteer requirements).
Setting that aside, you're right: I don't care about this hypothetical person they dreamed up. I don't even care about the real person potentially in this situation. There is 340,000,000 people, and it's not my job or obligation to care about any of them. Fortunately society has built structures to ensure they are taken care, and I've already listed plenty of them: welfare, SSI, Section 8 housing, WIC, free K-12 education, and the list goes on.
"Don't feel an obligation to assist" is lunacy. We're already assisting the homeless in California to the tune of a decent job's salary in most parts of the country. The most egregious cases are sucking down more in monetary resources than many doctors make in CA.
We don't have an obligation to assist people that won't even help themselves. We're not leaving someone to starve in the woods: we've called out a search helicopter, thrown them rations, and built them a cabin; but they'd rather burn down the cabin and use the fire to smoke fentanyl.
That statement can be made regardless of state. I'm pretty sure the costs charged to insurance companies are because of "agreed rates". Sometimes people with shitty insurance negotiate with the provider for the "cash rate". This isn't about the uninsured, it's about the way the system of middle men is setup.
A number of California’s policy decisions, like giving free Medi-Cal to all illegal immigrants and their huge homeless population taking advantage of EMTALA, clearly result in more freeloading on the system. That’s along with California’s consolidation among hospitals, high waste and admin costs, etc.
I'm fine with these people receiving preventative care, but they should share in the cost, rather than the taxpayer having to pay for all their health care.
40% of Californians are on Medi-Cal. 30 to 40% of Californians don't pay income taxes. The overlap between those two groups is basically 1:1. Therefore, 40% of Californians are essentially freeloading on the healthcare system through a combination of receiving care they don't pay for or via insurance they don't pay for.
Atherton residents include people like founders of A16Z, Stephen Curry and others. The funny thing, 10-15 years ago, a number of residences were second houses and generally empty.
Back about 15-16 years ago, there was an international incubator BlackBox based out of one of the properties in Atherton.
Time and again, a small group of people who have motivation and resources wins against numerous members of general public who are neither coordinated nor motivated enough.
Having just shipped the kiddo into the real world, she's leaning liberal arts (her and her mom suck at math), but she has a benefit neither her mom or I had - EU deal citizenship. She's going to do a year here to figure things out - she's also been thinking about Europe. University in Europe, for undergrad, is different than the US.
I think the large class model and a barrier of exams to advance makes sense in Europe. I've not been in the University of California system for years, but the school I went to - some classes didn't always hold up a level of academic rigor.
No one has to suck at any one thing, but one person can't possibly be good at everything. Time is finite -- everything you choose to do is a choice to not do some other thing.
nevertheless most people can be a lot better at most things than they are, in the same amount of time, if the education and culture around education is of higher quality.
I can be better at programming than I am, and I do it for a living. At certain point, I'd rather spend time kayaking or playing chess. I don't know why this is some kind of education problem -- it's opportunity cost.
And motivation was often impeded by either trauma or not finding a way to make it relevant to the student. Those are prereqs for learning anything. The common denominator for people that are good at something is that they liked it, so they did it more.
I know plenty of people that went through an engineering degree with me that do not like math, but they are competent at all the way up to what an electrical engineer needs to know, which is not research level math, but what most people would call advanced. I would never say I "like" math for example but I've always thought about it as something important to learn and get decent at to succeed in life.
I have way more interest in history and philosophy but the way I figured is I can learn all of that on my own because all you need is to read. Math is actually hard so I better get "trained by someone" at it.
I’m similar to you, except to upgrade my practical math skills at college I did cultivate a “liking” for math comparable to other technical areas I pursue. Namely, I started reading popular math books and articles, watching math youtubers, solving recreational puzzles from math periodicals… It was like, half actual interest and half contrived interest, seeing if I could develop in that direction. One summer when I had a lot of free time, with the help of a mathematician friend, I worked through a few advanced textbooks and video lecture series beyond anything I strictly needed. Progress was real but agonizing, and then I promptly forgot everything. It turns out that just maintaining a mid-to-late-undergraduate-level understanding of applied math is all I can be responsible for. It’s a responsibility I attend to, but my brain is only so mathy. At some point it becomes a question of both motivation and ability.
You also don't know the people who didn't make it through, because for whatever reason they aren't able to learn something they weren't able to like. Glad you were able to make it work.
I don't know the people that didn't make it through? You're under the impression I didn't meet anyone outside of those 25? And that I didn't have classmates all the way from first grade to university? Wat
I always find these types of explanations doubtful, because you can always dismiss someone of subpar ability as not trying hard enough or you could define trying hard enough in a way that is not defacto practical.
My experience teaching is limited (but I have taught some, to be clear) but I have found learned helplessness to be the biggest barrier. People have varying aptitudes for different tasks, and varying aptitude and a finite lifespan does imply some people have a lower ceiling than others in a given subject, but humans are powerful general learners. They don't generally reach their ceiling in most subjects. The limit for someone "bad at math" is almost certainly self-fulfilling prophesies they internalized.
Speaking for myself I have in the last five years or so been learning I have much more of a capacity for making art than I had thought. My art is nothing special, but I am improving every time I practice. But when I was younger I thought that I was just good at STEM-yy things and bad at other things. Relatively speaking I am better at STEM-yy than art-yy things, and I'm probably worse at art-yy things than most other people. But I have huge room for growth and I think I will eventually produce some beautiful watercolors.
As an aside, I've also found that almost everyone thinks they're bad at math? My friends with PhDs don't think they're good at math but they've forgotten more than I know about it. I think I'm bad at math but I can prove a thing or two. My spouse thinks they're bad at math, and they can't do the things I can do. But a few months ago they needed to do some simple algebra at work, and a coworker said, "dang, I wish I was good at math."
Somewhere out there Terence Tao is saying he's alright at math but he has nothing on that Euler fellow.
Could not agree more. I also taught for some time and generally had good results, almost everybody "got it".
There was one person, though, that I just could not get anywhere with. Even after several private lessons. Turned out that somehow she convinced herself that she will never get it and never be able to progress. Even if she did get it right one week, the next week was as if that never happened. I found no way across that barrier :(
I also agree. Doing university sudies in stem fiels is just.. doing the work, grinding until you get it. I was not very good at maths but i managed to pass the courses that I had. Most of my fellow students didnt.
It is what differentiates stem fields fron liberal arts, in my biased view. You are either talented at maths, physics, chemistry or you just grind, study with thr books snd exercises, until you know enough to pass the exams.
Coming from gymnasium/high schoolit is very different. There the teachers tell you what to do, at uni you have to figure out yourself how you need to study to get the results.
US universities have been known in Europe for being a childs play, if you were any good at all in stem fields
I think it is a matter of focus and aptitude. It also depends on instruction and approach. I took more math than I care to remember in college. Physics made calculus click. Upper division physics classes made some transform math confusing. David Huffman (yes, that one) taught a class in the CS department covering the same thing - from first principles - it made sense.
When the kiddo was dealing with common core stuff, I threw up my hands ... the approach made no sense, but sold text books.
I'm actually surprised that sentiments like this still exist. We work in technology, we've had enough contact with enough people to know that there is a difference between motivation to learn a hard technical field and the aptitude to actually do that field. "Anybody can learn basic addition" is mostly true. "Anybody can learn linear algebra" is not.
You could say that not every adult, 2 deviations from the IQ median for the sake of rigor (we lose 2.5% of the population under), capable of reading might be able to follow it, and I would accept the argument. At the same time almost every adult was also indoctrinated in such a way they "hate maths", even though their only experience is dealing with numbers, operations and memorizing formulas that might eventually be useful.
I'm not sure this translates well, but the best allegory I could make to illustrate my point is "the fish does not think about the water".
Great, I'll get on the phone to the local special school and let them know their non-verbal autistic students with IQs in the 50 to 60 range are to be enrolled in manifold theory next semester, and if they can't do it then badosu says it's all their fault because anybody can learn maths.
You are being disingenuous. Of course people with disabilities or severely deficient in cognition have innate difficulties that might hamper or completely preclude the development of mathematical skills.
The main point is that the educational environment most people have to deal with: public school in most countries, focused on rote memorization of formulas for passing tests, is the main factor on the incredibly inefficient and adversarial perception of most students and adults.
If you are able to understand something as "basic" as higher order effects in economics and societies, accrued from an understanding of rates of change from calculus, you are of course extremely privileged. On the other hand you are not some gifted unicorn with a special brain, you are just lucky (exceptions exist, but even they have to be somewhat lucky).
I'll defer to the research[0], but I believe mathematical attainment is correlated primarily with IQ and mostly only correlated with maths anxiety, wealth, etc. to the extent that those things are proxies for IQ.
It's cruel to tell students that everyone can learn maths. Neither "everyone" nor "maths" is strictly true, you know it's not true, and most of the students also know it's not true. If you just told them "everyone in the class can improve" then it would be correct and uplifting!
Terrence Tao is a gifted unicorn with a special brain and this makes him lucky, as does his excellent education. Everything is luck when you look at it from enough of a distance.
I am fine with the research results, it's important to note that it does not control for pedagogical variance. [Edit: I'd like refer to the last 2 paragraphs on the Discussion section to point out other issues in the paper the author acknowledges]
One speculation I'd be fine to make would be that high IQ could be associated with survival bias, e.g. someone who is already quite adept at identifying patterns might be able to derive meaning from structures without requiring the motivation that compounds over time for others "less gifted". But I am happy to accept it's just a very convenient speculation.
Sure, Terence Tao might be a gifted unicorn with a special brain, he had of course the circumstance and means to have his potential thoroughly leveraged. Maybe someone "gifted" that is forced to memorize the quadratic formula to pass a test gets bored (but not gifted or motivated enough to complete the square on their own).
Edit: I agree with the rigor on "everyone" and "maths" (not everyone, not all maths), I hoped we had shared context on this basic assumption (which I expected to be a frivolous pedantism, I stand corrected nevertheless). I also appreciate the point about cruelty (which, in the schooling context, I believe goes beyond just our specific topic) but this textbox is too small to contain my wonderful argument.
This it total gibberish. No one cares about this sort of academic correction for observed outcomes. "Hmm some kids are continuously scoring better on math exams. Our pedagogy must be wrong! We must teach better." In reality math teachers who are good are extremely rare because people who are good at math tend to not be teachers.
I mean, we have good evidence that "New Math" pedagogical approach in the 70s was very ineffective compared to traditional learning by example, memorizing multiplication tables at younger ages. Would you say that is "gibberish" as well?
> In reality math teachers who are good are extremely rare because people who are good at math tend to not be teachers.
It's hard to take your argument seriously when your own sentence corroborates what I'm trying to convey.
In most of Germany neither is required (Baden Württemberg requires non-EU citizens to pay 1.5k€ per semester). Commonly though you have to pay from 200 to 300€ administrative fees.
The harder problem is to enter Germany, but as you have EU citizenship, that's not a problem for you.
I forgot to add, I paid ~500 each, Samsung for the same drive is quoting $2k on their site (maybe a new sku). These were bought 2ish years ago.
Strange things are a foot at the Circle-K.
I think there are many jobs Americans have decided the just don’t want to do - at a large scale. That said many do.
There is a completely different dynamic with job shops like wipro and others sponsoring “high skilled visas” which are only used to undercut certain labor markets.
I'm not against tightening up the constraints to prevent what becomes indentured servitude dressed up in red, white, and blue. That doesn't help the American people or those who carry within them the American dream. But fixing that is not everyone's actual intent, and that does really bother me.
And your point? The US has an issue where at a certain price point labor has no interest. Reality is that is multiplied if it actually requires real work in a field, rudimentary construction, etc.
This is not a visa issue, but one we solve with illegal labor and visas.
The real solution is visas and making those that done want to work and sponge off social services, actually work.
My kiddo graduates soon, her baby daddy owes $75k in back child support - say 7 years. He’s talented enough to make $150+ wood working. Refuses to do anything because the man/etc. Branch not far from tree.
I’d love to turn a POS like him in such that someone equally talented and wants to contribute can, take a percentage. The person gets a visa, the dead beat gets servitude. No take on the servitude just taxes maybe going off to pay the debt.
The US is a land of opportunity, but also a land of a bunch of idiots that are entitled.
I don't know anything about that situation, but it sounds difficult and I'm sorry that it's happening to your loved ones. I'm not sure you can make someone work if they don't care to, though. Like, take the common example of debtors having their driver's licenses suspended for their debt. Is that really helping anyone? They certainly won't be any closer to paying it off.
I can't disagree with your final assertion there, but there's really very little you can do besides offer greater incentives that get people to genuinely want to work. And I know there's not a market for that and that the rich are keeping the purse strings tight. So it goes.
Whoa there. What's wrong with "undercutting labor markets"? Last I heard, when a profession (e.g. doctors) decides to limit the number of practicioners in order to charge a higher price to the public, that's a bad thing. It benefits the people currently employed in that profession now, but it hurts others who wants to join, and it hurts the public who wants to get the service (e.g. healthcare). The sum of hurt is greater than the sum of help. Cartels are harmful; they don't stop being harmful just because there are borders involved.
I mean, it's one thing if you think immigrants commit more crimes or use more taxpayer money. These are both false, but at least the argument could hypothetically work. But if you say that even perfectly law-abiding, non-welfare-using, good-work-performing hypothetical immigrants shouldn't be allowed in because they would "undercut labor markets", that's plain nonsense. Such nice hypothetical immigrants should be invited in large numbers and everyone would win from it.
If someone has no specials skills beyond what a current citizen college grad has, why is there a need for that individual to have an H1 or related visa? Many visas get issued to people that take the equivalent of a University of Phoenix degree.
I wish i could ill find the video, the farms in CA certainly do need labor. In the 90s when there was another - people south of the border are taking jobs bs - an interview er asked people waiting for for support at a welfare office in Salinas (lots of farms) offering jobs in the fields. Unanimous nope.
They are needed and often do more than those that are citizens.
Remove, or at least tighten the requirements, for welfare.
Your argument seems to be the equivalent of: if the (illegal? surely some of them) immigrants could get welfare they also wouldn’t do those jobs.
As welfare increases to the point where it starts to competes with jobs, it seems sensible to expect welfare will compete with jobs. Especially when you take in to consideration the expenses welfare recipients don’t incur as a result of not having to attend the workplace nor dress for such.
reply