> more and more engineers are merging changes that they don't really understand
You cannot solve this problem by adding more AI on top. If lack of understanding is the problem, moving people even further away will only worsen the situation.
Using the term "toxic" to describe things is an issue because people have an immediate negative reaction to it and go on the defence. Wording matters a lot and I'm unsure why there's such an insistence on calling things "toxic" when other words would both better describe issues and cause a less visceral reaction.
Most people don't make a conscious decision in how they react to something emotionally, it just happens. If you want people to take what you say seriously you have to consider the PR side of things.
> what is the point of teaching anyway when fundational knowledge are becoming obsolete?
1. It isn't
2. As you acknowledge, you need some 'foundational grounding', but the amount needed is quite a lot
3. The best way to teach metacognitive (and all other) skills is within a context
> the balance shifts from memorization to retrieval, iteration, verification
This has been trumpeted with every poorly-thought-out educational change, and it's a marker of unfamiliarity with the space. Memorisation hasn't been the focus ever; it's always about the other skills, and (some) memorisation is useful as part of that.
The educators keep making blunders like in this case. Hundreds of years of teaching and sorry but looks like your field is still trying to figure out the very basics of your discipline.
USA was founded well after the Pilgrims. I don't think anyone in 1776, or even in the Pilgrim days, was thinking a foreigner should have the right to vote for instance.
Most people in the US did not choose to become citizens until the mid 19th century. The process was much easier than naturalization today, though, presuming you were white and in some cases might be required to own property.
US also didn't have Jus soli citizenship until the whole civil war and slavery debacle. You had to go into a local court and show you lived in the US for a couple years, who would swear you in as a citizen. But most people didn't care about voting or holding office enough to bother.
> US also didn't have Jus soli citizenship until the whole civil war and slavery debacle.
Actually, my understanding is that the US did largely follow jus soli. What it wasn't was unconditional jus soli, but the principle was birth in the bounds of the US conferred citizenship except if positive law existed not conferring citizenship.
What are you saying, the US Constitution is bogus because people were racist in 1776? It's undergone amendments and clarifications by the Judicial branch. It's been consistently obvious that foreigners don't have the same rights as citizens here, and tourism or immigration law wouldn't really work otherwise.
You didn't answer my question, but here's what I'm saying:
> If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider that it might be a bad law.
I disagree that the law (which has been changed, amended and clarified) has been 'consistently obvious', and I still maintain that the conclusion of 'immigrants aren't people' invalidates the law.
> farming communities have previously raised concerns about the threat this predator could pose to lambs.
I have no sympathy for the idea that we should be okay with driving species towards extinction so that farmers are protected from even the smallest adverse effects.
There's an enormous difference between weighing the pros and cons and coming to a different conclusion than somebody else, and having no sympathy for somebody else.
Sympathy doesn't simply mean "understanding"; that's one small aspect of the definition of a more complex word that also denotes emotional reflection.
Having weighed the pros and cons, I have come to the conclusion that the correct amount of (emotional) sympathy for the position of "we should kill all the eagles because farmers deserve only endless profits, never (minor) costs" is infinitesimal.
You say that - but its not your pocket being picked... when you have to put food on your families table, you probably aren't as worried about some bird nobodies ever heard of. No farmers - No food.
1) This particular spotted big breasted eagle is hardly known and of little importance culturally.
2) Farm margins are very thin and its not up to you to dictate what an acceptable loss is.
3) Government has successfully in the past used hunting bounties to tame wilderness and increase farming productivity. The eradication of wolves in the great plains turned unremarkable scrub land into the most successful and productive era in farming the earth has ever seen. Maybe think about that next time you have a bite to eat and thank your local farmer.
I do not understand to what you are referring by "is hardly known and of little importance culturally".
Your statement is completely unrelated with the parent article. Contrary to what you say, the golden eagle is by far the best known species of eagle and the one with the greatest cultural importance.
The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is the species of eagle that has become the state symbol of the late Roman Republic and then of the Roman Empire.
Inspired by the Romans, during the last couple of millennia many other states have included the golden eagle in their heraldic symbols and several of them are still using it today.
Even much earlier than the Romans, at all Indo-European people the golden eagle had a special importance, being the bird used as a messenger by the God of the Sky, later known as Zeus in Greece and as Jupiter at the Romans. Already the Hittite texts from 3500 years ago have many references to the golden eagle.
The golden eagle is also the species that has been the most valued as a domesticated hunting bird in Central Asia.
The use of the "bald" eagle by USA has also been inspired by the Roman golden eagle, but the original species was replaced with a native American species. The golden eagles have survived in small pockets spread over a very large area from Western Europe to USA, so they were not representative for USA alone.
While the sea eagles, to which the American "bald" eagle also belongs, are bigger than the golden eagle, the golden eagle is stronger for its size and she is able to hunt bigger prey in proportion to its size. Only some jungle eagles, like the harpy eagle, are definitely stronger and able to carry heavier prey.
If a farm is economically endangered by a single-digit number of animals killed by natural predators, they have vastly more immediate problems to take care of.
Wasn't the eradication of wolves just the natural consequence of destroying the food source and way of life of the natives? Gotta get those people dead or moved if you're going to steal their land, amirite!
The golden eagle is one of the most culturally significant birds worldwide; it's ridiculous to dismiss that.
There was nothing unremarkable about the great plains (note the name); they didn't produce the crop yield that you value, sure, but that's not the only possible metric to measure anything against.
I think farmers are great; I don't think we should exterminate countless species to save them from one of the extremely-predictable externalities of their jobs.
4. Farmers are already facing great difficulties from economic shocks like Brexit, Covid, Ukraine and Hormuz in a short span of time, and further strain is unwelcome.
Eagles are also dealing with other stuff (arguably more significant-- e.g. habitat loss), but that's an irrelevance to this issue.
The potential predations of a small number of eagles nationally will make very little difference to the enormous number of sheep kept by a large number of farmers. They can handle the strain, and if it's really somehow too much, there are mitigations short of extinction available to them.
You cannot solve this problem by adding more AI on top. If lack of understanding is the problem, moving people even further away will only worsen the situation.
reply