A fairly easy role to help bridge that gap is to work in a consulting company as a technical IC. The sales team is always looking for technical folk to help build more robust and achievable projects as well as provide a more accurate estimate for number of resources and amount of time the project will take. They need someone who can push back on impossible client demands and help the sales team understand what those are and why. Ideally in these scenarios a senior tech person would be helping build out the proposal and plan for a project they will actually run and execute on. This gives the client continuity throughout the process and in the course of working within the client environment you’re in a great position to spot other problem areas the client struggles with and help build proactive proposals to help the client address them.
I'd honestly much rather interact with an LLM bot than a conservative online. LLM bots can at least escape their constraints with clever prompting. There is no amount of logic or evidence that will sway a conservative. LLMs provide a far more convincing fake than conservatives are able to.
Have you considered that we exist in a post truth era? Data doesn't matter any more. It probably never did. It's all feelings and vibes. After all, conservatives haven't been able to demonstrate their success with the economy literally ever. Every single Democratic administration since Eisenhower has improved the economy by most used metrics (GDP, Unemployment, Deficit Reduction, etc. While Republican administrations have seen them slow or go the other direction. It's not about "succumbing to my worldview" as existing within a world of data and being able to make decisions against said data. That's not conservatives and never has been. For example, conservatives think they are better with the economy despite literally decades of evidence to the contrary.
So that's a no and you think there should be no diversity of thought. Have fund living in a bubble while the rest of the world returns does the same with your opinions as you do with theirs.
Someone should tell the Wisconsin Education Association Council that they don't exist. They were removed back when you were in school and clearly aren't around today.
I think that would solve a huge number of issues. Teachers and admins seem to have no ability to kick repeated problem students out. My wife works as a para professional sub at our local elementary school. Twice this week a special needs girl was having a meltdown in a hallway and they essentially had to "quarantine" it until she calmed down. Students and teachers had to take other hallways to get where they needed to go. These children have educational needs that public schools cannot provide, but the burden largely falls onto them as an incredibly expensive (to the tax payer) babysitting service. Get them and the slowest students out of the general pipeline. They have been clogging it up and holding everyone back far too long.
And no. I don't have an adequate solution to handle the bottom X% of students who are beyond help from the general system. I just know the system can't function effectively with them in it. There are all sorts of other systemic issues I've seen through her experiences. But this is a major one which impacts all of the students. Classes cannot move at the pace of the slowest and / or most disruptive student. The slowest students need to be left behind for others to thrive. If they cannot reach the already low minimum standards, they cannot advance in grades. If they cannot behave to the low minimum expectations, their parents need to find other accommodations.
Doesn't seem disingenuous. Some places still have "character" in a world increasingly turning into the same strip malls and cookie cutter suburbs. In most small to mid size towns in the US, you can't really tell where you're at without reading signs. They all trend towards the same generic look with the same generic stores. Some towns fight this with varying degrees of success. But the Dollar Generals will not be stopped.
One example that springs to mind for me is Pasadena, CA and their trees. They are (or were) very NIMBY about things which would impact their trees. And I can't blame them. It's one of the few areas in the valley with significant shade thanks to their investment and protection of trees. Their roads were planned around mature existing trees instead of cutting them down as is so common. There's no doubt that Pasadena could have more dense housing if they cut down more trees to make room. It also doesn't seem at all disingenuous to feel like that would be a loss for the "character" of the city and a negative for the collective residents due to rising temperatures and loss of shade.
> Some places still have "character" in a world increasingly turning into the same strip malls and cookie cutter suburbs.
A huge reason for this is arguably NIMBYism. The reason that sort of thing exists is because suburbs very intentionally separate commercial from residential, and will not reconsider as things change. As a result, you end up with putting all the stores on busy roads, and they need parking lots since the people live so far away. All of the homes go in rigidly controlled neighborhoods that are both politically and physically difficult to change. Neighborhoods used to have stores interspersed, old ones, and ones in other countries still do. They don't anymore because we cluster buildings by use in North America, and especially in suburbs.
I'm highlighting the picking and choosing aspect.
Wanna keep everything the same? Sure, argue for that, but that isn't what "character" arguments are about. It is about claiming the things that you like as inside an arbitrary sacred protection line, and the things you don't as outside. Claiming maintaining character if you don't fight every single change is a way of painting over selfish interests in the name of the community. There's nothing wrong with selfish interest, but don't try to hide behind a claim that you are doing it for the greater good, or to preserve something indefinable.
E.g. I could just as easily argue that the "character" of a neighborhood is derived from the affordability and diverse socio-economic backgrounds of residents. Therefore densification, infill, reducing parking for transit lanes and other YIMBY efforts in advancement of those characteristics of the neighborhood are about preserving 'character'.
I'll also point out that your example seems to concern public preservation of nature, not restrictions on private property. There's a stronger argument there since it is a public good. Raising a stink about your neighbor wanting to build an inlaw suite, or - god forbid - a few townhomes, or multifamily housing on their lot is a whole other thing.
> I could just as easily argue that the "character" of a neighborhood is derived from the affordability and diverse socio-economic backgrounds of residents. Therefore densification, infill, reducing parking for transit lanes and other YIMBY efforts in advancement of those characteristics of the neighborhood are about preserving 'character'.
If you argue that the character of a neighborhood is based on all of those things, then keeping them the same would maintain the character. What you seem to advocate is for changing them, which is then changing the character.
> Raising a stink about your neighbor wanting to build an inlaw suite, or - god forbid - a few townhomes, or multifamily housing on their lot is a whole other thing.
If someone builds an apartment complex on land near mine, the builder it is not my "neighbor". The builder is an LLC that owns the land. They do not live there and do not care if traffic gets awful, crime goes up, or quality of life of the pre-existing neighbors gets worse. That's because they aren't our neighbor. They're an LLC.
>If you argue that the character of a neighborhood is based on all of those things, then keeping them the same would maintain the character. What you seem to advocate is for changing them, which is then changing the character.
You totally missed what they're saying, which is that "character" is a nebulous term and can mean anything one wants it to be. For example, it could be argued that you're the one changing the neighborhood by refusing any change, and causing people to be priced out, thus changing the neighborhood's "character".
>If someone builds an apartment complex on land near mine, the builder it is not my "neighbor". The builder is an LLC that owns the land. They do not live there and do not care if traffic gets awful, crime goes up, or quality of life of the pre-existing neighbors gets worse. That's because they aren't our neighbor. They're an LLC.
Why would a builder ever be a neighbor? Your neighbors are the people that live in the complex, and they would indeed care if traffic gets awful. Not wanting to suffer through traffic is a major reason one would pick an apartment complex near one's job.
Ultimately NIMBY's want to control property they do not own to the detriment of others. If you don't want an apartment complex next to your house, then consider buying that land and not building an apartment complex.
GP refers to a "neighbor wanting to build...multifamily housing on their lot". That's referring to the land owner as a neighbor, which I would not do in the case of an LLC. I would refer to the tenants as neighbors, as you say, but GP wants to use that warm and fuzzy term to describe the company that builds the apartment complex.
Ultimately it is selfish interest. Either because they literally have money invested or they are "losing" their childhood. But it's not disingenuous. It's how they actually feel. The area losing its "character" is an accurate description of that. It doesn't matter if I think or you think the mixed use zoning would vastly improve things long term. Doesn't matter how many studies are shown. Things will necessarily change in ways many people don't want and many times there are actual downsides for existing residents to make way for the new. Especially during transition periods.
None of these are arguments from me against new development or pushing past NIMBYs where they become intractable. But if development in Pasadena can maintain as much existing green space as possible and commit to building out more, it would be a lot palatable to the "natives". And I think it would lead to better results for future residents as well. I think it's okay that people want to live in a neighborhood full of quaint small family businesses and resist the Subway and the McDonald's and the Dollar General. But that's "NIMBY" too so where do you draw the line? We live in a capitalist society after all, and the only thing preventing these large mega-corporations from being absolutely everywhere are the few NIMBY willing to say no to it with the little power they have over their slice of the world.
I'm not saying the feelings are disingenuous or that you can't object on personal grounds.
I'm saying that using 'character' as a catchall for things you personally don't like is disingenuous. It's hard to argue against since it can't be defined.
Don't like multi-story infill? fine. Argue against that specifically and provide reasons that don't rely on something indefinable. Personal feelings about specific issues are a fine reason for arguing since those can be dealt with. I can argue that parking is or isn't an issue and can be mitigated. I can't really argue that the neighborhood isn't losing its character.
I can do the same thing by invoking "problematic" which carries social connotation in the same way that "character of a neighborhood" carries social meaning. If I say an argument is "problematic" you can't really rebut in any meaningful way because you don't even know what I mean. If I say an argument is using false premises or invalid logic, there is a discussion to be had.
I agree that "problematic" is vague. But you have to be a bit dense to not understand what people mean when they say they want to preserve the character of a neighborhood. That means they generally liked it the way it was when they moved in, and they want it to stay largely that way, especially when it comes to zoning changes.
The word problematic differs because it can be applied to any type of thing (not just neighborhoods/zoning) and has no hints as to what it might mean. Everyone understands that people who move somewhere generally want it to stay that type of place. This is why people complain about gentrification, urbanization, and all other types of neighborhood change. They chose to live in that place because that was the kind of place they wanted to live.
I don’t have to be dense to raise my eyebrows at “character”.
It has been invoked in plenty of examples in the name of preventing other cultures and skin colors from a neighborhood, among other less defensible reasons. My parents weren’t sold a house because the seller thought “a good Christian family” would be better suited to the character of the neighborhood. That’s not a rare story. Ask some of your visible minority friends. So if you want others to assume what “character” means, you don’t get to be upset when people assume that your motives are rooted in something ugly. If that isn’t you, don’t be surprised when you find yourself standing shoulder to shoulder with a person like that.
That’s why I prefer if people elaborate what exactly they are objecting to. It keeps you from providing cover for assholes (or exposes you for one), and allows a conversation about what changes might actually be welcome.
Raise your eyebrows all you like! Just don't tell me (a visible minority, as you so eloquently put it) to consult a visible minority.
The notion that a word is poisonous because it is used by people who use it in a different way is silly. According to this logic, democrats should not advocate for "progressive" policies because some of the people who call for progressive policies are actually calling for the confiscation of private property.
It's like saying that vegetarianism is poisonous because Hitler was rumored to have been vegetarian. It's like ad hominem, but dumber.
It has worked fabulously well for Musk. Can't be surprised other's are trying a similar approach. There is evidence that senior executives have more traits associated with psychopathy than the general population. Seems like the thing to expect really. Wonder what media platform Altman will buy.
My wife and I are both "book a week minimum" readers. In 2025 she finished 80 novels. I was in the mid 70's. We've been doing this basically since middle school uninterrupted. Reading is just our preferred form of consumption based entertainment. Last year we watched maybe five movies and I finally got my wife to sit through the fourth season of The Wire. The only "modern" show we're actively watching is The Pitt.
It's starting to sound like reading books has a similar distribution as consuming cannabis. The "daily" users account for 3/4ths of the spending on cannabis despite being 1/3rd of overall users. The heavy consumers consume A LOT and skew the statistics.
Books are entertainment for me. Even when I watched more movies and TV, I didn't remember everything I watched. I've definitely read beyond my preferred genre's "greatest hits" and am sometimes pretty deep into the daytime TV section of novels. I'm okay not remembering all of them.
I've used Claude Code a lot over the last year and I've generally been very happy with it. I have a lot of experience writing code both professionally and for personal projects. I've found that for things like basic APIs and websites and database operations, I don't have to pay attention to the code being produced much at all anymore. It Just Works for the most part as long as you adequately describe what you're trying to build. There are only so many ways you can write a CRUD app after all, and generally the implementation isn't "special" just necessary.
But my experience on 3d game dev in particular has been quite different. I've been able to get good results for basic 2d games and basic features in 3d worlds, but have been struggling to build more complicated scenarios with Claude Code without laying out every specific detail. I have to tell it to use quaternions for a particular rotation because I know about issues with gimble lock. I have to suggest a ray traced solution in another area because relative mouse position isn't good enough when accounting for resolution and aspect ratio. If I didn't know about ray tracing or quaternions and how they are used and fit into game development I wouldn't have been able to interrupt Claude Code and guide it down a better path. I think claude code is particularly weak in spatial reasoning and I suspect the context required for some GPU operations are pushing other parts of instructions out of context. It's forgetting "the basics" far more than I've experienced in any other project. Building a 3d world simulation featuring a bastardization of plate tectonics and weather systems is the first thing I've tried to do with Claude Code that I could have probably written myself faster. If it wasn't for the crippling adhd.
reply