Plus the places most suited for dams also tend to be natural wonders. Rip Glen Canyon and Hetch Hetchy

Add to this: The chemical process of creating concrete is itself a significant contributor to CO2 emissions. So assuming the goal is to reduce CO2eq, that also needs to be accounted for.

They did. You just weren’t paying attention, and it was only one day of the class. And it was one of the easy exam questions, so you didnt remember struggling on it.

Def all over the business world. It’s more polite than saying “okay, let’s have a 5 minute break from this meeting so everyone can piss and get some more coffee”

Easy A for me, except when i’m forced to write by hand.

Okay - I’m sorry your nerd muscles were so weak you couldn’t even hold a pencil.

But regardless of your personal shortcomings, these classes exist because they teach useful things, and if we want to tell others who did and did not learn those useful things in this class, we need a way to test that knowledge.

Now, it seems like your point of view is that all the knowledge and experience of a university education is useless anyway. This is a point of view I have some sympathy towards, but on the whole I don’t think it is right. However, if you do, then why the fuck arent you filthy rich yet? If you know so well what people need to know to be successful and well educated for the next 30 years, and you think you know how they should learn, and you know how you can evaluate their abilities after receiving an education - then why aren’t you doing that and raking in the billions of dollars that go into university education right now?

So go do that. Tell me when you make your first million. But until then, I’m gonna assume that the foundational western liberal education has value, seeing as it has persisted for quite a while. LLMs on the other hand, may very well turn out to be a fad of the summer.

Those are all very nice ideas, and we’ll see if they pan out in the future. But universities need ways to stop (or, fine, reduce) cheating that can be implemented right now. A class in English literature and composition should test how well you can read and interpret the source material to then express something about it in your own words in a coherent way. This is a useful life skill to have, and students should learn to do it without AI assistance. Giving them a pen and paper and a quiet room to work in has been a good enough method of assessment for at least the last 50 years which is reasonably cost effective.

Yes, there are problems with standardized testing. Yes, you can cheat on a paper test. But the way to improve the evaluation process is to first establish a stable baseline, and then try new things that might work better to see if they actually work better. Not to throw out everything we knew before and haphazardly try every random idea that pops into someone’s head in a panic.

Article says they guy putting it on is making an event to celebrate “family values”. So, no.

If you are 30 that is essential meaningless, like saying you do not care about pensions. If you are 60 both statements carry a lot more weight.

Very weird idea. Like, if you’re 30, you should be socking money away for your retirement, not relying on your kids to support you when you’re old. And also, by the time you are 60 you should have built up a large and supportive group of friends to make sure you aren’t lonely, not rely on your kids to keep you company. Pretty much no one I know between the ages of 20 and 40 lives in the same city as their parents, and they visit them once per year for Thanksgiving or Christmas. If you are having kids so you won’t be lonely… it’s a bad bet.

Or worse, the intended demo shows up

I like this idea, but I also think that we should keep in mind that the time of university staff is expensive, and with the already outlandish cost of education we need to strike a balance

perfect not being the enemy of the good and all that

But there was no necessity to move much of large scale manufacturing over […] rampant consumerism

I mean, I’m not fan of rampant consumerism either, but a lot of manufactured goods legitimately improve quality of life. For example, iPhones are manufactured in China, and the low cost of manufacturing there allows the product to be sold to consumers for a relatively low price (I should also add that a lot of the components in an iPhone are actually manufactured in America because they require a skill that America has a competitive advantage in). If we insisted on keeping these manufacturing jobs in the US, iPhones would be much more expensive and fewer people would be able to afford one, and likely a foreign manufacturer would step in to fill the niche left.

Sure, no country “needs” to offshore jobs - no country really “needs” to do anything. But if America wanted to remain economically competitive while providing a good quality of life to it’s citizens, then those low-skill auto manufacturing jobs that everyone is so whistful about 100% needed to go to lower skill markets.

Most goods are not reasonable to spend government money on as well. That works great for medical goods and food, but not much else.

Those are the goods I would suggest it is important to keep domestic manufacturing capacity for. Also military equipment, but we already do that… too well.

Eeeeeeh… China was rapidly industrializing, and the low skill manufacturing jobs they took were going to leave the US anyway. While ensuring the rights of foreign workers is definitely something I support, it still wouldn’t have stymied the tidal shift in low skill labor to lcol nations.

Ensuring a domestic supply of some goods is definitely important. But tariffs aren’t the answer here - instead, the answer is to support local industries by giving them government contracts to produce their goods, which the government can then use and/or stockpile when we aren’t in a time of crisis.

And anyway, while a great amount of manufacturing labor went overseas in the last century, American has been reclaiming ground recently… with robots.

Basically no matter how you split it, those high paying, low skill manufacturing jobs were never going to stick around for long. That’s just the forward march of technological progress.

Or, ya’know, they could just have students take tests on paper in a lecture hall.

They are arguing about market fundamentals, which means at least one of them is actually arguing “capitalism bad”, which is political.

Average Lemmy economist.

Unfortunately, it fails the thread, as it is political.

Get a P38.

It works.

No, no… It feels like lying because you are lying.

Yeah, that’s what I said.

But at no point do they think you are a fuck dick and approach you to say that

Right, that’s the problem. I wish they would. Again: see Grindr. But unfortunately, I’m not gay. Very annoying.

That both of you are human and want to fuck and at no point in that logic do any single one of you reduce the other person to a fuck object

Except that I never reduce anyone to being a fuck object. They appear in my awareness as a fuck object, with the potential for me to gain awareness of their deeper humanity later. Similarly, I do not fully appreciate the deep layers of the human experience within my cashier at McDonalds. From my point of view, they are a hamburger dispensing machine, up until the point where we form an emotional connection. And I can safely assume they are happy I see them this way, because they don’t want to see the deep layers of my humanity either - they want to see me as “faceless customer 447”, who they hand a bag to and then ignore as quickly as possible. If I went around fully appreciating the depth of the human soul in every person I looked at, I’d probably go crazy, and certainly would never get anything done.

Given that appreciating the true depth of the human soul is both time consuming and energy intensive, we must ask why we do it for any particular person. It must be because, for some particular person at some particular time, we have reason to put this time and energy in. And for random girl in the grocery store, the reason is: because she has a nice ass and I wanna fuck her. So we really just have the problem one step removed. I could be all “hey, those are some delicious looking apples.” And she’d be like “I hope so, but why the fuck are you talking to me? We’re in the grocery store, that’s weird.” And I’d say, “Because I’ve fully conceptualized the depth of your human experience and am fascinated by the minutiae of the way you’re picking your apples as just one more example of the beautiful fractal complexity of the nature of reality.” And she’d say “Okay, that’s even weirder. Are you high on mushrooms? Why are you talking to me instead of staring at the ants in the grass outside?” And of course, my honest answer must be “because you’ve got a nice ass and I wanna fuck you.”

Just learn that quick fix then you can approach them on equal terms again and actually get tail instead of whatever you are doing

I mean, “whatever I’m doing” is exactly what OP suggested in his OP. Meeting women at socially appropriate times and places (social gatherings, bars, concerts, events, etc); through my social networks and hobbies; and via online dating apps. In all of these cases, I either have an actual reason to talk to a stranger other than the fact that I want to fuck them, or else I can openly flirt with such a stranger under the assumption that this is expected and socially acceptable since the whole point of the venue is to find sexual/romantic partners. And I do this quite well. I just don’t hit on women in the grocery store.