I like Assistive Access, but my biggest issue is that you have to click like 100 times to read any notification. No option to just be able to read a text from the home screen. I found it was even more friction (for my use) to unlock my phone constantly than the regular format.
This. The I feel the significant nerfing of important functionality in the Camera app (as an example) suggests assistive access isn't geared toward the general folk like myself.
I'm not sure much matters to them aside from quarter-over-quarter growth. Take climate change, for example. Bad for business in the long run but here we are.
Sadly I agree with you. But I think society can't work if this is accepted. I think you need some amount of intrinsic orientation, because if this is forced then it leads to even more evil.
My mother tongue (German) has a term (Herzensbildung) that I would like to use here, but I don't know a good english translation. The dictionary gives me "nobleness of heart", but I don't think this captures it, because it is about the education to lead to this, not a final state. Literally it means "education of heart". But this is not about morale, good and evil (that's Gewissensbildung). It's about being educated to want things and to care about them.
When looking at past times, it is often assumed that they were as focused on advantage as much as we are, but I don't think that's true, and I think loosing this is also part of the sickness of "the West".
I've been trying to start on embedded in my own time, but I don't have much experience at all and have been spinning my wheels getting up to speed. I'm generally YouTube/docs first, but do you find any particular LLM to be most helpful and reliable at a introductory level?
While this focuses mainly on the consumer-credit card company relationship, I wanted to add this interesting study on the relationship between consumers across socioeconomic strata:
```
Since retailers usually charge the same price regardless of payment method, payment card
rewards programs with different levels of rewards effectively cause some customers to subsidize
the consumption of others. The research presented confirms that households with income
less than $75,000 per year collectively transfer over $3.5 billion to those making more than
$75,000 per year.
Furthermore, the cost of interchange fees to retailers can be significant, especially in competitive
sectors such as gasoline and groceries. This study demonstrates that interchange costs are
typically about 17 to 19 percent of retailer profit. Variance in these costs may induce risk-averse
retailers to set higher prices, thus generating additional economic inefficiencies and hurting retail
consumers.
Negative impacts on low income and minority households and small businesses have become
“entrenched” and are likely to get worse as interchange fees continue to increase. This economic
inefficiency will not change unless there is a “sufficiently large shock” in the form of policy or
technology to change the dynamics of the monopolies holding sway over the credit card system.
```
A valid interpretation but not the only way to describe it. If a merchant offers a 10% discount for spending $1000 or more, are they making lower-spending customers subsidize the purchases of higher-spending ones? Are they transferring wealth from poor to rich?
Technically yes. But what would the impact be of outlawing the practice of volume discounts through a “policy change”?
I'm going to take the opposite view and say paying teachers 32k is a bad thing--here's an article from an hour ago saying that 90% of Illinois schools have a teacher shortage tied directly to low pay. Clearly this salary isn't signaling that the market is saturated with teachers.
Setting aside the merits of teaching and childcare on their own, failing to fill teaching positions now in favor of other jobs is going to lead to students who are unprepared to continue to fill said jobs in the future.
>I'm going to take the opposite view and say paying teachers 32k is a bad thing--here's an article from an hour ago saying that 90% of Illinois schools have a teacher shortage tied directly to low pay. Clearly this salary isn't signaling that the market is saturated with teachers.
Actually no, the low salary may simply be lagging slightly behind market conditions. Schools can't just magically pay all teachers more because of a temporary shortage of applicants, and paying only the new hires more would be unfair. Salary increases need to be well-justified and applied uniformly, as teacher salaries are some of the most structured in the whole economy and paid for by taxes that can't be changed quickly. So eventually, the salaries might go up, but the shortage might also lessen too as more graduates appear.
Illinois is welcome to pay teachers more. However, if there is literally no-one in Illinois willing to pay teachers enough to teach the kids, then I put that it isn't reason to be embarrassed by the education system.
Either Illinois is in a state of poverty where parents can't afford to educate their kids, the people of Illinois don't value education. They are, in practice, signalling quite clearly that they think there are more important things teachers could be doing. It isn't that hard in principle to set up a private school, you need a building, some desks, a chalkboard and a teacher. Pay 'em what you like. I'm sure there are a lot of helpful regulations to comply with too that'll push the complexity up but it isn't that hard.
This is the families with children making choices.
This is not entirely true, with a two party system and competing policy positions of relative importance coupled with party line voting, there are many issues where a majority of the majority, which only amounts to about 30% of the total population, can block changes that are popular with the 70%.
This leaves the 70% in a position where it takes extreme effort to move forward. Starting a new private school system is a big effort for a position that says teachers should get 50k instead of 35k.
As far as I can tell you've identified that you have limited ability to get what you want in the public system because of an intransigent minority. The obvious response is to move into a parallel system where the minority doesn't have to participate. That is fast, fair and and pretty easy to execute all things considered - if people are serious about wanting to pay teachers more, which I don't believe they are.
> Starting a new private school system is a big effort for a position that says teachers should get 50k instead of 35k.
It really isn't. Or more accurately, if it is then that is the problem rather than the salary being paid. Teaching kids to the standards of a system that is currently paying its teachers ~$35k is pretty straightforward when you get down to it; and improving on it would not be hard. The economy is made up of people continuously taking positions on these sorts of issues.
I spent decade(s) being educated, I've got a respectable number of letters I can put after my name and all the way through the capital costs outside a couple of science labs and the actual school building were negligible. And a big chunk of the important material is available online for free. Education in real terms is a really easy field to enter and compete in. But I think if anyone tried they'd just discover that people don't actually want to pay teachers money. They want someone else to pay teachers money. Because without that little rider there is only a rather small problem here to solve.
According to The Internet, the average teacher salary in IL is $72k per year.
No doubt that number is skewed by the Chicago region. School funding is dominated by property taxes; they are high in the Chicago area and significantly less in others. It is indeed a local choice being made.
I don't have kids, I find children to be annoying at best but even I can not imagine not paying teachers so much as to make it a prestigious job that is tough to get.
From just a purely economic perspective, it seems like a trivial investment given the higher order effects.
Instead, we are going to suffer the higher order effects in the opposite direction.
Just insane but we seem to be getting really good as a society at making dumb decisions.
That's probably because making participation in a specific political establishment compulsory is authoritarianism and it, by design, will face less vocal dissent
