Where would I start? I know next to nothing about that guy besides the headlines about the drug price raise. Wikipedia doesn't paint a brighter picture either tbh.
Bill Nye is a science "presenter". I think he was a mech eng at Boeing.
Degasse Tyson is a trained scientist but has a tendency to espouse opinions on subjects he's not an expert in, but with the authority of his professional background.
I'll be frank, if supposed "actual scientists" were better at science communication, may be there wouldn't be a need for "science communicators."
I say this as an actual scientist who mostly dislikes communication. I'm happy there are communicators out there that raise our profile a little, I don't feel jealous or spiteful for some reason towards them.
I think you're mistaking "communication" for "vulgarization". Most decent scientists are good at communicating their findings via publications. Making those findings understandable by laypeople, maybe not so much.
No, that's not what I mean. Of course he like everyone else can have an opinion on anything they want to opine on.
What I'm saying is because of his background, that offers him imprimatur on things which he's not an expert but people will presume that because he's an expert elsewhere he's opinion in other areas are equally valid.
I wonder how hard that is to argue? We can afford for one of us to stay home, and we can afford the best nanny we could find, but we've sent our kids to daycare because they can learn more from 4 teachers than one. Languages, cultural customs, social interactions. We see this again and again when they meet kids that have a single stay home parent or a nanny. They are more comfortable in social settings, they understand how to relate to other people, and they don't think people are strange for doing things differently.
I'd love to see some data that shows that a mother is better than a trained baby sitter, is better than group care of some kind.
>the more their teachers later reported that they do not work independently, did not use their time wisely, and did not complete their work promptly in grade school.
I'm not raising kids to do homework. Real learning isn't copying from a book. It'd be interesting to look at this at a later date. Looks like these studies should have this data by now, since it started with kids in 1991.
Daycare/preschool isn't a baby sitter. Kids in this setting get a lot of interaction with their peers, which they generally love. They learn a lot from play, and kids are more likely to play with peers around than with just adults.
"just as easily" is not exactly true. Sure mom can pump and leave breastmilk (an inconvenience, some might say!), but there is at least one good reason that moms are moms, at least for the first year. Hard to argue with biology.
If a woman is only staying at home for the first year of an infant's life, I really wouldn't call that a "Stay-at-home-wife". That's more of an extended maternity leave. I've always seen "Stay-at-home" wife/mom used to describe women who choose to stay home long-term, usually in place of a full-time career.
Starting at 6 months after birth, at the earliest, yes. Breastfeeding is so important for health in later life that it should not be sacrificed for a couple months of work.
As a "millennial man", I would like her to work while I stay home.
I enjoy housework, childcare, and my ideal career would work fine spending 4 or so hours a day working from home (and indeed, might work better).
So I think lots of Millennials want one of the couple to stay home for finance reasons or personal preference, but I think a lot of them pick who out of practical concerns, not gender roles.
That interview was the final straw in causing my total loss of respect for Wikileaks. Trying to profit politically off the death of an innocent man is vile. Forcing his parents and family to endure the weight of the conspiracy community in an attempt to attack your political opponents is an awful thing to do.
The two sides on political spectrum define "fake news" differently: one calls everything that's not reported by the established (and very well paid) media "fake news", the other one calls news that uses cherry picked facts to push the narrative "fake news."
Do either of them qualify as fake news? How do we combat fake news if nobody knows what it is, and how do we prevent collateral damage/unintended consequences?
Basically, "fake news" happen when the messenger adds their color to the content. It's activist journalism.
It's "the President issued an executive order" vs "the President, in a Hitler-like move, issued an executive order"
Journalism was needed because people wanted to know what happened across the globe. Citizen reporting on twitter, Periscope, and YouTube erased that need. Journalists also didn't help themselves last year by being completely one sided. People noticed that.
"Fake news" is the journalism's last attempt to save itself. It's already dead from self inflicted wounds.
What about reporting on real facts in a way that leads one to draw a false conclusion? Imagine if Fox News ran a story on race and crime and used lots of FBI facts, never drawing any actual conclusion, but pointing out how crimes break down racially while never mentioning the possibility that profiling or the interactions between race and poverty or poverty and crime? All the reporting would be on actual facts. But it should at least be called propaganda if not fake news.
they are both forms of disinformation, and usually organized by interested parties as focused media campaigns, so therefore not just disinformation but outright propaganda.
