Honest question: what kind of noise are we talking about? If the human eye is only sensitive to a very narrow set of wavelengths, and we remove all of those wavelengths from the environment so it has nothing to detect, then why would there be any noise in the measurement?
While I agree in theory, I’m not really sure there’s much that can be done in practice. The genie is out of the bottle here: jobs want the paper, so people get the paper, leading to jobs expecting people to have the paper. An employer is unlikely to deliberately “lower their standards” (in their view) if the pool of potential employees with a degree is large enough for their needs already. Since you can’t legislate that employers are not allowed to require a degree, and you can’t expect people to not get a degree and sacrifice their own potential future to break that cycle, we’re kind of at an impasse.
That’s why the only way forward that anyone’s figured out so far is government funded higher education.
Edit:typos
Those are maize dogs if they’re from that region of France. They’re just corn dogs if they come from anywhere else.
I don’t know of any system that will hold up if all the people in power just decide to ignore it. What we lack is a robust way to ensure that no one group holds all the power at any given time.
Oh, well, carry on, then. Carry on.
The ambiguity was by design. It let the test proctor decide who did or did not pass with near impunity. This was used to legally deny voting rights to minorities.
It’s good to know that we have advanced as a society. We’re talking about now, not 80 years ago.
You also seem to be under the impression that making a “correct” choice would be without consequences. It would be nice if the moral or legal choice always had positive consequences for the chooser, but that’s not always the case. That doesn’t chance the morality or legality of the choice. Yes, soldiers have been persecuted for disobeying an illegal order; either legally or socially; but that doesn’t change their duty.
(Also, David McBride was arrested for releasing confidential documents, something that is very much illegal. We can debate the morality, but that’s not relevant here because it’s not remotely related to a soldier refusing to follow illegal orders.)
A soldier following an illegal order may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to not follow illegal orders. A doctor choosing to not treat patients because they don’t like something about them may lead to people dying unnecessarily, so they are duty bound to treat all patients.
A doctor’s agency does not supersede another’s right to live. A doctor doesn’t get to choose who lives or dies; and yes, even requiring that the doctor refer the patient to a different doctor would result in people dying.
A soldier’s job includes disobeying illegal orders. That’s the law. Try again.
Thank you for that inspiring addition to the conversation.
We know we can Google it, but asking questions is what creates discussion.
Unless they wear a whig.
Nah. That would piss off the mailroom employees, but they don’t control who gets sent mail. The weight costing money does hurt the people who make the marketing decisions, though.
Blame Kellogg
deleted by creator
That does come with the unavoidable side effect that the majority of the people will simply not participate. It then follows that sites like Reddit will continue to be the place where the majority of the people will go.
If your goal is to participate in small communities and you are okay with the slow pace of those communities, then that’s fine. If your goal is to move people away from corporate-sponsored media for whatever reason, then this won’t work.
Well, how does it feel to wnt?
And can be properly gutted and de-veined.
My response would be that if you cannot explain your position, then you cannot defend it, and therefore you do not understand it yourself. This implies that you are simply feeling you way into your position using gut instincts, which are easily created and manipulated without a reasonably sound argument. An ad on TV, a op-ed piece only half heard, a slew of biased headlines, and more all contribute to these gut feelings without providing a rational base.
In short, I reject your claim that complicated positions cannot be explained. Yes, many can’t be easily explained, but you should still be able to explain and defend them.
So when the position is challenged and you can’t defend it because you have only these gut feelings at the core, you fall back on the belief that anyone would have the same feelings eventually. This is, of course, not true.
I hate that phrase so much.
It sole purpose is to belittle and dismiss the person you are talking to.
It tells the person that they are obviously unable to understand because of some unrelated trait. It’s an ad-hominim that just shuts down the conversation.
It’s only used by people that cannot actually defend their position, but rather than continue to discuss it, they would rather just shut out the other person.
It’s them telling the other person “you are less than me which is why you are wrong, and you must simply accept that because you cannot possibly understand how I am right.”
This is why you can never disprove creationism sufficiently to convince a young Earth creationist. The hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
I would argue that people didn’t know what it meant, or were in a position where they could not refuse the loan.
Kids grow up being taught that they had to have a college education to have a good job, and that a good job is necessary to have a good life. Parents and counselors reinforce this, so they have no reasonable means believe otherwise.
Employers DO require college education more and more. Not all, true, but the competition for those jobs is higher, so expect lower pay and greater difficulties in getting hired. Often that pay is not even enough to make rent. For the rest, the number of people who have a degree is in increasing, so the competition for those jobs is increasing as well, with the same decrease in pay.
So out of the gate, children are put in a situation where, from everything they can see and are told, they need a degree. But most can’t afford one. Therefore, they are placed in a position where they must take a loan with no guarantee that the degree will get them a job that pays well enough for them to pay back loan.
So it’s a bit more than “you took a loan, you pay for it.” It better described as “you were cooreced into taking this loan on false pretences presented to you by all of society.” Society should take responsibility for that.