I just made the jump to PTA and it is really, incredibly slick. Finally escaped the financial system's grip on my data. Look into SimpleFIN to get data feeds, but I also used LLMs and browsermcp to download all my statements from all of my banks.
Really awesome to have control finally. I am very interested in extending PTA to be more like blockchain ledgers, with signing for every transaction and decentralizing the ledger. still mulling through how this would work, but it would essentially be KERI based.
It just seems to me that the entire purpose of school is not clear. What precisely is the purpose of "English" class? What? To read and speak English? Ok, then why can't kids test out of it most of the time? Is the purpose to be knowledgeable about a canon of literature? Why can't people test against that?
The truth is that pedagogy and instruction is just a lazy way of providing childcare. So who cares what they do with their time.
Most school districts do allow students to test out of classes and get placed at higher grade levels. The majority of people would never have tested above grade level. Your presence here means that you likely would have.
> The truth is that pedagogy and instruction is just a lazy way of providing childcare.
Providing every child with an education has been pedestrian in the developed world for less than a hundred years; it is far more expensive (and generally far more worthwhile) than mere childcare. The majority of people now living on earth never had the opportunities you and I had in school. This wasn’t because their caretakers didn’t love them, it’s because there was a dearth of resources available to educate them.
> The purpose of English class was to provide a field for interdisciplinary subjects. We learned how to write the standard five paragraph essay. We learned how to detect dishonest and manipulative messaging in advertising. We learned to relate themes in literature to contemporary society.
This is how I remember my English classes. We did not spend much time at all on grammar after the 9th grade. We didn’t study any classic literature besides reading a Shakespeare play every year; you had to take a separate course for that. This is also how the classes are treated in most colleges these days; you’ll get English majors who spent 4 years reading critical theory and bad contemporary novels written by friends of the department head, rather than anything with serious cultural cachet.
This is the only serious criticism of the subject, in my opinion; the applications that grammar has in logical reasoning, composition, interpretation, and foreign language acquisition are too significant to shrug off, but it isn’t being taught particularly rigorously anymore.
And how are you, right now, communicating? You're writing in English. Grammar, spelling, punctuation, all written down, is its own subject that people aren't born knowing or can acquire like they can speak.
In addition, it's English Literature and Language in the same, so yes, about knowing partly a canon, but how how to interpret texts, both nonfictional and fictional and poetic.
> It just seems to me that the entire purpose of school is not clear.
I don't know how to explain to you why it's important to educate humanity.
It's also about how to reason about and understand what you're consuming, how to analyze sources, how media affects you; my wife is an English teacher and the comments here are often completely missing what's truly going on in a school.
I agree that that's its purpose, but the fact that there are many adults who are as bad at reading and writing as there are just goes to show how bad the classes are at actually teaching what they're trying to teach.
That said, maths aren't much different. Being bad at maths is a cultural marker of sorts, since many maths classes are very bad indeed at teaching much beyond basic addition and subtraction.
School is good for people who care to care. American students do pretty decently on international standard exams. It's that we have a culture of not giving a fuck, and thus we have adults who can't read something that is over a 6th grade level.
See this very website on people who complain that they can't digest a pretty straightforward article
I'd love to see those exams redone on a selection of adults with nothing to lose if they fail or get a bad score. Maybe the not giving a fuck becomes apparent then.
Out of all of Žižek's writings, that article really isn't that bad. I agree it could do with some headings, but you shouldn't need ChatGPT to summarise it for you, but I'm not surprised some people do.
> To read and speak English? Ok, then why can't kids test out of it most of the time? Is the purpose to be knowledgeable about a canon of literature? Why can't people test against that?
Because people VASTLY overestimate their ability with their native language or their command of native language literature.
The SAT English Achievement tests used to absolutely obliterate even students who got good AP English scores. This isn't limited to English--even native Japanese speakers struggle with the advanced JLPT levels, for example. Grammar is hard, yo.
If you don't actively study your native language, your working vocabulary is quite small and your grammatical constructs are excessively simple.
As for shared literature, we were in front of what was claimed to be the house of Jonathan Swift with a bus full of tourists from various English-speaking countries, and the tour guide cracked a joke about "A Modest Proposal". I snickered a bit but didn't think much else. The tour guide pulled me aside later that I was the first person to get the joke and it was almost the end of the year--we're talking hundreds to thousands of people from the US, Australia, India, etc.
I mean, just ask someone to name three main characters and what they did in the last book they read. Most people will struggle. You need to spend some discussion time in order to affix a book into your memory.
The purpose of school is a mix between providing childcare, and making sure most of society have a largely overlapping common upbringing experience. We hear that we encourage diversity - but only of superficial stuff like sexual orientation or skin color. We don't want people that think too differently.
This is why I, despite my deep appreciation for the pursuit of knowledge and having spent a significant chunk of my life in the academia after graduating, want my kids to spend as little time as strictly necessary in primary or secondary schools. And the need comes from the fact that I need some of that childcare, not that I need someone else to teach my children anything.
I’m curious - do you think you’re an independent thinker? Do you think it’s a competitive advantage? What does thinking differently mean? It seems like a thing people say because it sounds good without really interrogating it.
I objectively find myself to be an independent thinker, and I mostly find it distracting. I could be much more functional to society/work/relationships if I spent more time thinking about the kinds of things other people think about, in the way they think about them.
I observe most of the most successful people in society, are successful _because_ they have mainstream thought patterns, people look up to them because they understand them, and they develop solutions that are in line with what most people need/want/desire.
I think I'm an independent thinker. One symptom is that I repeatedly find myself observing that other people do things because they're copying other people. This is one symptom, but there's more.
> Do you think it’s a competitive advantage
> I could be much more functional to society/work/relationships
> most successful people in society, are successful _because_ they have mainstream thought patterns
Don't care, I'm not optimizing for being competitive, being successful, or any of the other things you mentioned.
See, another symptom of being an independent thinker: I've thought about it on my own and I've concluded I'm not interested in your targets.
This sounds like a very common sort of misanthropic attitude I see littered around the web.
You know how they say - like in making music - in order to break the rules you have understand them?
I don’t like the take directly, but as a person who makes music, what I realize, and I think this is what they meant, it if you don’t study music, most people are likely to naturally slide into the most simplistic forms of it, because that’s what naturally sounds good, so you’re like naturally more inclined to recreate a 1 4 5 progression, rather than Mozart.
Do you think that you may have accidentally slid into this position, or sort of thinking exactly like a like blase’ counter cultural sameness, copying all the self-defined independent thinkers?, or do you think you have some insight into what makes your perspective unique and clearly in some way spiritually valuable to you?
I would be concerned that purely “thinking about it on your own” would lead to a really narrow set of beliefs. Like no offense, but your answer is a carbon copy of “disaffected youth” I’ve both exhibited and seen exhibited my whole life, with maybe a little less bite, so I’m guessing your not that young. But I’m often wrong.
But I am genuinely curious, what do you think makes you an independent thinker? And what purpose does that serve you?
> copying all the self-defined independent thinkers
At this point I can no longer put effort into responding to you. You think that my conception of "thinking for myself" is "listening to people who claim they think for themselves, and repeat what they say"? You know the HN principle of "assume the most generous interpretation"? This is the opposite.
Anyway, FYI, you sound like you're trying to deradicalize an andrew tate fanboy. You're A) really bad at feigning your concern, and B) extremely off target.
You didn’t give me a lot to go on. I think it was the most generous interpretation from what was available. Give me more! What drives you? How am I so off base?
This is genuinely a philosophical question I am deeply interested in, what is individual thought?
Why do you care so much about me? Re-reading our conversation, you were the one that asked "do you think you're an independent thinker", as if hoping for a yes so that you can then attack it. All I said is schools are mostly childcare.
If you care, go check my comment history and ask about something specific.
Do you think independent thought and deep thought are correlated or uncorrelated? When you say most people copy their perspectives do you think that’s bad?
A lot of the thinkers I’ve been interested in lately seem to deeply embed their thoughts in a tradition, so I’ve been thinking that in order to have better thinking I should copy more.
> why do you care so much about me?
Sad question, but what is life but a series of attempts to connect to other people. Having a discourse makes it real. Tell me I’m wrong! Maybe having independent thoughts has real value. Usually “think different” is about as deep as an apple ad.
Yes yes, I started this as a bit of a gotcha, I have a bias against people who proclaim to be independent thinkers, and decry others as sheep (“copiers”), but I would love to be wrong!
> Yes yes, I started this as a bit of a gotcha, I have a bias against people who proclaim to be independent thinkers, and decry others as sheep (“copiers”), but I would love to be wrong!
Yes, I got this sense. I'm not what you're looking for.
Tailscale uses wireguard, which is better in a lot of ways compared to OpenVPN. It's far more flexible, secure, configurable and efficient. That said, you probably won't notice a significant difference
There is no level on which it is their job to find solutions for problems. That is not a job description nor what they do. Their job is to guess which investments will earn them money.
Problems solving is accidental and done by other people. Also, their have zero incentives to care about social problems or about problems of people who are not rich.
Avoid using your phone, don't install apps, don't rely on it for anything, and stick it in a drawer most of the time. Phones have ALWAYS been a bad bet for privacy, and we've been losing this cat and mouse game for years. I agree that what's happening lately seems like a real watershed moment, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time.
There's a part of me that wishes Firefox OS remained viable and overcame its problems where it could've become a viable alternative. I'm hopeful for the future of Linux phones, but I've yet to see a product that looks like it's reliable and works well..
The problem extends far deeper than just FOSS for mobile and IoT. There isn't competitive OSHW. The entire pipeline for silicon hardware development (PCB dev is relatively easy) is virtually locked away behind gates that require identity and/or address verification, node-locked trial licenses or sometimes big license fees paid to one or more big 3 EDA vendors. And that's even before getting anywhere need talking to a fab.
If memory serves me right, in early days of Android, Google engineers were writing drivers on behalf of manufacturers because OEM drivers were too buggy.
Think about the amount of work and the kind of talent this requires.
If you are starting from scratch today as a no-name company, I doubt any hardware manufacturers even want to talk to you.
I'll add to this that libadwaita is really good, and manages to scale applications between desktop and mobile extremely well. Far better than any other mobile-desktop convergence I've seen before. Flatpak also offers a very good method for distributing apps in an easy and largely decentralized way.
This is orthogonal to GrapheneOS; GrapheneOS's utility is being eroded by Device Attestation, but this change is irrelevant as GrapheneOS will already fail strict attestation.
Maybe I missed it, but assuming GrapheneOS doesn't adhere to this verification, or provides some OS-level way to disable it, what makes Graphene worse after this change?
GrapheneOS is only allowed to live because google lets it. This signals a wider ecosystem change that tells us that GrapheneOS is going to stop being usable when this generation of hardware dies. This generation or maybe the one after it.
What do you mean with "Google lets it"? GrapheneOS is based on AOSP.
GrapheneOS only runs on the Google Pixels, and Google may decide to render future Pixels unusable for GrapheneOS (e.g. by preventing to unlock/relock the bootloader).
But another Android manufacturer could get to the point where GrapheneOS endorses them. It feels like it shouldn't be that hard for an Android manufacturer, and they would immediately get quite some attention. Maybe not mainstream attention, but largely profitable, I think.
GrapheneOS exists only because the Pixel's bootloader can be unlocked. Google could remove that option anytime, making it impossible to install GrapheneOS.
Buy a Linux phone or contribute to development of the Linux phone ecosystem, and accept that while it may lag behind in features, it makes up for that in freedom and privacy. Potentially keep a cheap Apple/Android around for stuff like banking software that only works on them.
Aren't there only two rules that all groups follow in the animal kingdom?
- don't lie too often
- don't kill members of the in group
Seems like these would be required for any group to survive, which makes sense why they are universal. All other rules/ethics seem to be dependent on resource scarcity.
Groups don't follow rules as such, group behaviours emerge from the interaction of individual behaviours.
As to whether all groups display those rules - I suspect not - though it rather does depend on how you define a group - the definition of group probably has some sort of colloboration built in ( as oppose to a bunch of indviduals that happen to live in the same geographic area ).
>All other rules/ethics seem to be dependent on resource scarcity
That doesn't make the rest of the ethics (as a rule and mechanism) any less useful to help nurture the species and its intelligence.
It just makes them not absolute but dynamic and condition dependent. But given a condition (e.g. resource scarcity) the appropriate ethics retain the utility we talk about.
True, but the original sin was using phone numbers as proof of identity. The fundamental problem is average users cannot use passkeys, manage their own crypto keys, or understand that for identity to work, there cannot be an authority based recovery method.
The market simply does not care, and businesses are acting accordingly and picking the lowest friction option with acceptable levels of fraud.
What’s odd to me is that they dont even have a method for more advanced users to not use numbers. I think perhaps Digital Credit Union may be the only bank in the US using passkeys.
Alternatively, you could make a Nix flake that can generate an immutable microVM image based on Solo5, running a MirageOS unikernel that implements NAT traversal with UDP hole punching and relay fallback. This image can be deployed to Fly.io as a lightweight, autoscaling Firecracker VM with per-second billing. It boots in milliseconds and costs far less than Lambda.
Any reason to use lambda vs this cloud-agnostic approach? Maybe I am missing something. I guess per second vs per 100ms billing, but I can't imagine it ends up being cheaper with Lambda.
Absolutely - there are plenty of more cost-effective, cloud-agnostic ways to build something like this. This is just an experiment to explore Lambda networking and push it beyond its intended use cases.
Not sure we can conclude much there tbh, their own numbers and the numbers in other studies they mention show truly enormous ranges for their rather small sample sizes. Plus, if they're right and the contamination is mostly coming from cap damage, it'd vary immensely by the kind (and treatment) of the cap and luck on how much damage it got, and not the kind of bottle, even if they do currently correlate.
So a useful study to say "stop painting the insides of caps, duh" but it hardly seems like anything intrinsic to the container. And hard to extrapolate to other areas which may not paint their caps, or anything that uses corks.
I don't think they're painting the insides, it sounds like the bottling machine has a hopper full of caps, and they rattle around in production and chip microscopic bits of paint off and those stick to the insides and everywhere, until washed off by the booze.
Ah, yep, you're correct - I was misinterpreting the pictures in the paper. On rereading, they seem pretty clear about it being paint on the outside that somehow gets on the inner surface.
Though also:
>The results show that glass containers were more contaminated than other packaging for all beverages except wine, because wine bottles were closed with cork stoppers rather than metal caps.
So yeah. Cap differences, probably for fashion more than function, which are probably easily remedied.
Really awesome to have control finally. I am very interested in extending PTA to be more like blockchain ledgers, with signing for every transaction and decentralizing the ledger. still mulling through how this would work, but it would essentially be KERI based.
reply