I try to include it whenever possible, and I long for a future where it's universal, so any date shown could be displayed in 8601/3339, and thus never in the five or so random date formats I have to deal with, not including relative ones. I doubt its going to happen though, since even excluding the relative dates, most sites seems to write their dates according to their own locale, which does make sense and is the best option if you're not going to provide any options to the user, and it's the option that makes the least amount of people complain (no American is going to complain about seeing December 19th 2025, and no German is going to complain about 19. Dezember 2025, and not that many are even going to complain about 19.12.2025).
I'd imagine the same; skipping evolution entirely is hard. Dismissing it however, is not that uncommon.
> Between 2007 and 2019, there definitely was progress: from 51 percent of high school biology teachers reporting emphasizing evolution and not creationism in 2007 to 67 percent in 2019. It was matched by a drop from 23 to 12 percent of teachers who offer mixed messages by endorsing both evolution and creationism as a valid scientific alternative to evolution, from 18 to 15 percent of teachers who endorse neither evolution nor creationism, and from 8.6 to 5.6 percent of teachers who endorse creationism while not endorsing evolution.
This is not the case in the US (anymore) and atleast some places in Europe. Print gets taught first and you learn to write with that, then cursive comes later, by this point usually as an afterthought.
> why did you waste time on learning to not connect your letters?
As someone who learned cursive by learning a new script first, you're making a big assumption here. Nobody learns to not connect their letters.
I didn't learn to not connect my letters. I learned to write without connecting letters, and never properly learned to connect them (until much later in life), because that was never required (and never emphasised while I was in school anyway). If I were to write as I did before, but attempt to connect the letters, it would turn into an unreadable mess. So I didn't. Not until I learned to write in a new script and could transfer that back to my original handwriting. I still don't write a cursive lowercase F, because Cyrillic doesn't have that glyph, and the one that I'm supposed to use never looks right. Not that it matters, since I only write in cursive for myself.
> If I were to write as I did before, but attempt to connect the letters, it would turn into an unreadable mess.
Oh, okay. They did not tell you in which order and direction you should write letters in print? They focused on that here, but maybe that was actually part for the preparation of learning cursive.
Probably a better question, atleast for a wide variety of books. Some authors however are very into writing detailed descriptions of places because that's how their brains work and what their readers enjoy, but 95% of those descriptions have nothing to do with anything that happens later in the book, other than hiding the one tiny detail that actually does become relevant.
If 'why are the curtains blue' were consistently explained together with Chekhov's gun, then maybe we wouldn't be here having this discussion.
> 95% of those descriptions have nothing to do with anything that happens later in the book, other than hiding the one tiny detail that actually does become relevant
> If kids are reading for enjoyment already, is assigning a book in school going to kill their love of reading?
I nearly did to me, or atleast the continual assignments did. It took a long time for me to pick up a fiction book again. School never assigned me technical writing and encyclopedias, so I continued to enjoy those, thankfully.
They can read Minecraft strategy guides and Yahoo auction fan fics for all I care, since that's a lot better than nothing. I remember not wanting to read what school assigned me and how that killed my desire to read most fiction writing, and would prefer that not happen to more kids.
Art is a matter of taste, and if you go counter to your audience's taste, don't be surprised if they disengage.
I don't think it's a stretch to call it the UI language of 95, while 2000 just adds more functionality within the bounds of that framework. Add in the Win7 search bar in the start menu, and the OS not crashing, you haven't really done anything of note with the UI beyond staying within its framework. It'll still be a Win95 UI.
Meanwhile, WinXP started to fiddle with the foundation of that framework, sometimes maybe for the better, sometimes maybe for the worse. Vista did the same. 7 mostly didn't and instead mostly fixed what Vista broke, while 8 tried to throw the whole thing out.
Also, holodecks are limited in number. Voyager had two, and during one episode where the plot point was that they were in an area of space with literally nothing, the holodecks were in such high demand they had to schedule time there so everybody got a bit each. With Voyager having 150~ people onboard, I can easily imagine that sucking. The Enterprise had more holodecks (4-6~?), but with around 1000 people onboard, if they were in the same situation of there being nothing to do, the Holodecks would probably have been equally crowded.
reply