Readit News> Don't know how this will affect them on the long run. Now it's only my observation.
I realize that you're only talking about your own kids, but I have a feeling that many people on here consider this to be some kind of general rule for all kids, akin to the "back in my day" rhetoric of the generations before us.
I think it's good to consider that your kids will likely live in a world where this attitude is actually a very effective one:
* Instead of spending days trying to solve some problem yourself, download an app that solves it for you in minutes.
* Instead of coming up with a very well informed opinion about everything relevant in today's politics, listen to trusted others who have taken the time to form opinions on the matter.
* Instead of trying to "earn" that promotion by working 80 hour weeks and "keeping your head down" at your office, apply for a different job elsewhere that offers better pay and work/life balance.
As most of us here are programmers, we all know the benefits of greedy algorithms vs brute-force solutions. Yes, sometimes a brute force solution can be very satisfying, but taking "smart" shortcuts in life really does pay off, whether we like it or not.
And before you tell me that I'm probably one of those millenials who doesn't do anything and thinks everything will just be handed to them: well.. yeah, that's kinda true. I've never worked at a single job for more than a year, I've never really put more effort into my education than what was strictly needed to pass (and sometimes less), and now I'm a data engineer at Apple.
Suddenly anyone in the future with the ability for critical thinking and problem solving beyond "do they have an app for that?" is going to inherit the Earth.
So it could be that the children are both ok and broken in new ways, like our generation was.
And in fact, I don't think anyone would be surprised if that very same teenager looks up YouTube videos about how to beat the most difficult parts, find all the secrets, and so on.
Even less like the hard old games, Celeste comes with an assist mode:
> Assist Mode allows you to modify the game’s rules to fit your specific needs. This includes options such as slowing the game speed, granting yourself invincibility or infinite stamina, and skipping chapters entirely. Celeste is intended to be a challenging and rewarding experience.
I mean:
> we still say (and write) things such as ‘heuristics’, ‘confirmation bias’ or ‘family-wise error rate’
If you came out of a PhD and think these are challenging concepts to pick up, or that they somehow make you more valuable than your average technical employee, well, I don't know what to tell you.
I generally avoid hiring PhDs onto my teams unless the problem I'm faced with is PRECISELY what they researched. 9 times out of 10 a highly motivated generalist is far more valuable than a PhD.
I have no doubt that he, too, felt threatened for his life by an armed gunman at some point in that altercation.
I also assume that, as the saying goes, either of the people that Rittenhouse killed would have also rather faced a trial by twelve, than be carried by six.
This seems to be a bad faith argument, given that Kyle was being physically and brutally attacked when he correctly responded in self-defense. Quite different from your "logical conclusion".
Nobody is grinding away at anything, perhaps other than yourself. It seems many people here are mystified by your unyielding interpretation of a two word sentence and nobody can seem to get a straight answer out of you, other than repeating the truism that "it's not obvious".
First, let's take a look at the statistics cited in the piece which support the main thesis (the whole article is built on two facts):
* highest quit rate since .... 2019! 2019, wow, that was like ancient history. That makes this historic!
* 14 million (what a big number!) of 18-34 not in labor force. Isn't that number so big? OMG, look at how big that number is!
Whereas the data says both the total not in labor force number and the "do not want job" number has declined for all groups except those 55 and over![1] where it has slightly increased. Actually the WSJ got this right when it said the labor story of the day is people (primarily small business owners) taking early retirement. But then again, that story was written by an experienced journalist.
That's it. That's all the labor force participation statistics she cites in support of this "Great Resignation". The rest are a series of grievances about how bad people have it and how they're really not gonna take it anymore! Well, OK, then.
So how could someone write a story with the exact opposite conclusion of what the labor force statistics say? Why would someone think lying about a "Great Resignation" is responsible, objective journalism?
The problem with these type of activist, grievance-based, emptional pieces is that they are not news (describing how the world is) they are advocacy (describing how the world should be). And when you blur those lines, truth and engagement with reality is the first casualty. Raisa obviously thinks a great resignation is warranted and so just pretends that it's happening. As if her own intuition and circle of friends were more reliable than labor force statistics. So she disengages with the real world and starts pretending that it is actually occurring. She is LARPing the news!
And you often see this on the part of frustrated activists. The clues are phrases like "people are starting to wake up", without any actual data. It's perfectly understandable that this happens - lots of people have been secluded, isolated, and are beginning to lose it - but when it seeps into news reporting, it's very dangerous.
1. Gets submitted to Hacker News
2. Gets voted to the front page by HN readers
It must fit with a narrative that people already are predisposed to believe. Maybe that's why the piece gets written to begin with.