And I've taken many theory and practical classes and found way more "cookbook" work in practical classes, without much theory. I will agree that theory class quality can leave quite a bit to be desired.
I found the best balance came from getting both theory and practical at the same time--of course, where I was and in the departments I was taking the most classes within, they tended to pair them as corequisites and they were reasonably-well synced up so you were doing the practical while covering the theory behind it.
General Ed is general ed. However, given the rising illiteracy and innumeracy among "college graduates" one does wonder how many have been paid so much to accomplish so little."
That 'however' is precisely why I say it leaves a lot to be wanted, and the classes which pretty much existed purely to fill in gen ed requirements had a tendency to be not just heavy on theory but on the fluff end of that--you don't have to do that much with the theory, just enough to prove you were present and paying some attention...nothing to prove that you actually understand the topic, and in some cases that may be at least somewhat discouraged.
There’s just about zero chance that some young recent graduate has such a background.
That's a funny thing to say in an industry where drop-outs create world-changing companies. What exactly are you hoping to achieve by deporting skilled, educated workers?
Offhand? Their home countries being able to join us in the information age on a larger, better scale, with local labor able to build, maintain, and expand their infrastructure. It's more likely to happen if locals can do it, than if it is necessary for foreigners to be imported.
Just to be clear: This action is NOT reducing the number of H1-B visas issued. It is reducing the INPUTS to the lottery, not the OUTPUTS. So the same number of visas will be issued, just to different people.
As it should be. Remember, the complaint is about the abuse of the H1-B visa.
Imagine you're running a lottery for seats in a certification program--all entries are supposed to be for people who meet the qualifications, because there's several times as many people applying for the program as there's seats. You've got a total of 50 seats in the program, 500 qualified applicants, and anybody who wins automatically gets a seat reserved for them. The odds of any applicant getting in is 1 in 100.
What happens to the odds of the qualified applicants for getting a seat in the program, if the 4,500 applicants who didn't meet the qualifications are included in the lottery anyway?
Is it fair to the people who actually meet the official qualifications for an H1-B visa to not ensure their chances of getting one are as good as possible, by failing to properly check the applications?
For-profit might actually get some museums a bit more interesting.
More interesting, and less correct because the facts don't bring in the money like a nice exciting lie does. It's better if we just call them history-themed amusement parks instead of museums.
The nonprofit ones still need to get their money from somewhere; they are not in possession of money trees, and must get people to turn up to stay open.
Besides, some of the history ones already are history-themed amusement parks because people wouldn't donate money if they told the less-palatable truth, and the sad fact is that an entertaining history-themed amusement park might actually more closely approximate the truth than some of what we get as a result.
Because in 23 years, people will look back and say "oh how short sighted of us", and it's a chance for people to re-examine what we think is a good path for humanity; if there's consensus right now that space is going to be millitarised and museums will become for-profit within a few decades, are we as a people ok with that.
For-profit might actually get some museums a bit more interesting. Other parts, though, show a distinct lack of understanding of the base technical requirements--'de-extinction' biologists as a concept is horrible.
Let's start with the basic requirements if you want to bring back a species. You need a good, complete genome with some decent amount of variation, plus a species you can have incubate it to whatever point is necessary--or an artificial female reproductive tract, and we're unlikely to see that one this century. You also need the ability to put a zygote together from scratch which...well, depends among other things on if you care to have the reborn species carry the mitochondrial DNA of its original version or will accept the stuff from whatever ovum you use to start it... If you do, that part might be workable already; otherwise, we're looking at also having to figure out how to get an ovum from pretty much complete scratch.
The current approaches to try to save endangered species focus on maintaining a genetically-healthy and viable population in the wild, plus a decent size of ignoring that evolution means that extinction is a natural process. This probably actually harms the chances of having the necessary genetic databank to attempt a revival...and, really, the question ought to be asked with some if it might not be better to focus on maintaining a healthy, viable population in captivity because later reintroduction will be a markedly more possible feat and certainly less expensive than attempting to make Jurassic Park a reality.
That's confirmation that it's a perk of membership--but I can tell you flat-out that if they're making much of an effort to let potential new members know about it, that's a distinct change from when I was getting my biochem degree. This is literally the first I heard of this particular perk. Now to see what the membership fees for me would be...
That isn't necessarily separate from the OP's observation--you can be quite smart, and still be the person standing around with their thumb rectally inserted when everybody else has realized that the situation requires timely action and therefore certain concerns must be sacrificed if necessary. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough, do not let it lure you into gold-plating at the cost of actually getting the thing done.
Don't let worries about maintainability delay too much deploying an urgent security patch, that can wait for the next version which should have a baked-in solution.
The quality of instruction in theory classes can sometimes leave quite a bit to be desired, and arguably the theory ought to be rolled into the practical skills as they are mutually reenforcing.
Gen Ed, however, can leave a lot to be wanted, especially when that's the sole reason for the class's existence.
We already have laws against stalking, spying, and harrassment. Why do those laws not apply here? Is it that magic word "online" again?
Probably, though you likely to get quite far if what you propose isn't directly about privacy but rather ensuring that the companies gathering the data are legally responsible for any reasonably foreseeable consequences--if nothing else, it might manage to get it to where Facebook has to confront the possibility that, in fact, people are not always going to be friends.
Are you kidding? The Us--public and private--have the same parasitic administration issues that the K12s system does, with the added issues caused by students who typically don't quite realize that loans are not free money--so they'll decide hey, let's go to the more expensive school because its students all get 'free' ponies (and not that other one which spends it money on research & quality instruction) and then they'll be wondering why the fuck they've got so much debt afterwards.
Plus, not all the Us are particularly research-oriented, and the heavily research-oriented ones are actually pretty sucky places to go as a student--students are annoying distractions from doing research there. (I went to one nicely in the middle...and will generally not bother sticking around if the offer seems too good, because I don't want to bother trying to figure out what's off.)
'Publish or perish' just amplifies all the problems involved here, too, because it acts to punish those in academia who want to get their research done to the point where applications are developed, unless they're in one of the handful of fields where you reach that part as part of the paper. Stop the system from only caring that you're publishing lots of papers, even if the research quality is shit. You want the importance placed on the quality and importance of the papers--right now? It doesn't matter if that one paper you published is top-notch work and going to be cited in your field's textbooks, it's only one paper, and they'd rather have the person who has published lots of eminently forgettable low-quality papers.
Until this is fixed? It will not matter one infinitely small bit how much money is getting poured into the system. Damn near nobody is able to invest the time and effort required--more money, therefore, will simply go to generating more papers, still generally leaving developing applications to business.
You go to a research computer, and access scientific journals online. A decent size library will have subscriptions.
And what they don't have, you can get through intra library loan.
Have you ever tried that one? When I was looking at getting some papers that way, I was told it'd be a 6 week wait (for electronic copies) if you're lucky and things go fast. You are are dependent on a library accepting your request, and overall the system seems to be designed with the assumption that nobody using it might actually have any need for any information in a timely manner. (The one time I did use it, it was for something I wanted to read for my own reasons, and I would not have been able to check its status--basically, the only thing I'd get is notice of when it came in. I don't even know if there is a fail state--or if my request would linger in the system until the heat death of the universe if nobody accepted it.)
ACS could do a lot by having access to the papers it owns be cheap or even free to members--and making sure students who could join are aware of this particular benefit.
Why would you assume that the court would come to a logical conclusion?
Because despite your news bite view of the courts they handle thousands of cases across the country daily and the vast majority of them follow a perfectly logical conclusion and thus you never hear about them.
Funny, that. Some of the laws that are getting activists pushing for them being dropped, the basic reason they're against them is because that is not at all the normal result. It's not news, because it's the normal situation--and, really, some of these laws seem to be inherently against logic.
It turns out that 'ability to use basic logic' is not a basic skill among those who hold elected offices.
Not saying it CAN'T be done. Simply that concrete is just a superior building material in terms of ease of use, longevity (the world's oldest concrete structure is sneaking up on its 1900th birthday) and maintenance.
It'd be nice if we hadn't forgotten how to make that kind of cement mix.
My house is over a hundred years old, the concrete foundation is crumbling in places. Other than one corner where some idiots hadn't properly sealed the new porch, the wood frame is doing fine.
Actually, I hear we recently rediscovered it--and it's basically 'use saltwater.' Sometimes, it's the stupidly simple things... (The salt changes the structure of the concrete, I suspect somebody more interested in concrete can find the article.)
Honestly it sounds more like a pilot study. fMRIs are fantastic for trying to narrow down what parts of the brain seem to be involved in what, but they're seriously expensive things to run.
Since I expect most people here are more in the engineering side of things--pilot studies are a form of providing proof of concept. It's the cheap(er) version you slapped together in order to demonstrate that your idea actually has a snowball's chance in hell of working. They are not always going to be terribly open about being a pilot study--it's probably safe to expect that anybody who admits it's a pilot study when publishing the results has already secured funding for the actual study itself--so you have to look for tells such as the combo of small sample size and expensive/difficult/finicky processes. It's a toss-up when you're looking at a study that involves, say, effects of brain damage on humans, because the sample size is limited by the unfortunate fact that you must use volunteers & cannot induce the condition yourself.
Suicide tends to not be that 'rational choice for rational reasons' that you seem to believe it is. It tends to be an impulsive act, involving a significant amount of high-grade magical thinking--and if you object to religion, you certainly should be objecting to that!
Of the remaining group--well, it might be better to aim more for offering them the ability to do something of value with their death, a satisfying death instead of merely a quick and painless one. There are things out there which are most likely best done by somebody who is not going to mind at all that it will almost certainly kill them.
Some of them seem to be less far left activists and more either targeting that demographic, having some regrettable hiring choices if they were wanting to avoid ending up heading for the far left, or some mix of the two. A few of them I can't really say much about on their political bias because I stopped watching them not because of their politics but more because I have a very low tolerance for people who being surprised and confused and possibly distressed by the discovery that not everybody shares their same rich, Western and generally White culture...nor am I very fond of incompetent flailing attempts at 'understanding.' (That's in quotation marks because I'd certainly hope that an actual attempt to understand a different culture would be less...superficial and flaky.)
This is going off of some of the interesting decisions I've seen them make, incidentally, and using sites which are set up to check for bias and how it affects the behavior of the news media to make sure that the scale in use is balanced.
Well then you are the only advertiser with a conscience.
Kudos to you, but the rest of the advertisers think "annoying you" and "advertising" are synonyms.
It's actually a decent portion of the advertisers who think that, and it's both the traditional and probably-true view--after all, just because you might not be in my target demographic or a potential sale now doesn't mean you won't be in the future, or in a position to lose me a sale.
It is, however, easier to confuse 'annoying you' with 'advertising' because it does admittedly increase brand recognition--but that may not necessarily translate into the sort of positive image that will get you sales, and if you get a bad enough image then a brand the consumer has never heard of might still get preferred because it isn't your brand.
Really, if you can still believe that there's no such thing as bad publicity after the recent spate of very public demonstrations of the opposite, you must be living under a very isolated rock.
It is 2017 people. Who is still viewing Youtube without an adblocker???
In 2017, when was the last time you were able to go to a Web page that did not require you to turn off your adblocker?
I think I've only run across a couple, it was 2016 when I saw a lot and that tended to mark the last time I visited that site. I still get to a lot of places, and a few attempts to hold content hostage for my turning off my adblocker may have gone unnoticed because I also require scripts get whitelisted, and none of the places I dropped are particularly missed.
I prefer not having to deal with prying malware off my systems. As long as they don't show awareness and respect for the fact that I don't want to get malware and am actively avoiding vectors? I will be as sympathetic to whining about my use of an adblocker as I would be for a mugger's complaints about 'lost earnings' because I did not have cash on me.
Yeah, and you can also become active in pushing for adservs to be more responsible and ethical about things like the malware risks involved. If you are in a position to choose what adserv is used for a site? Try to pick one that at least tries to keep from being a malware vector. Don't just whine about adblockers being used, start doing your part towards making it safe to turn them off or poke holes in.
I honestly would be quite happy to whitelist any ad group that makes a point--openly, publicly, and in both words and actions--of making sure that they don't serve as a malware vector.
If they really wanted my love? Let me also flag offensive ads, ads which are betting that the viewer will forget that they hate them but remember the brand, and say flat-out that I don't & won't for the foreseeable future use that product so stop showing me ads for it.
Is there something special about vaping that might change these chemicals' normal effects on the human body? Going through the list in the blurb...
Benzene, for example, is a gloves-and-hood substance in chem labs, ditto toulene. Cadmium is toxic metal which has turned places into hazmat sites, do I need to say more about it? Formaldehyde is also pretty nasty, and is generally recognized as a poison for a reason; breathing it is highly inadvisable what with it being a poisonous gas, but it's healthier to breathe than the rest of the list... We already know the safety of all of these in other contexts, and you can get the data with just a bit of basic searching...which I've done for you.
The thing that I find interesting is that it ought to be possible to build vapes to not have these problems. We know how to safely produce aerosols, we know pretty damn well how to predict what alterations will happen with heating, and analytical chemistry exists. Instead we just get complaining.
I have been a few places where the ban on vaping was done for practical reasons--it's not sufficiently visually distinct from traditional cigs that you can reliably tell from a distance which is being used, so the property owners have decided as is their right to just ban 'em all in order to simplify things.
Which, incidentally, goes into the whole problem with the "its my right!!1!" thing--that's only true when it's on your private property. That's iffy on public property, and definitely not true on somebody else's private property. Really, not being a douche goes a long way, and some laws pretty much exist simply because critical mass of douches took place.
If you haven't noticed, I wasn't quite talking about fulfillment on its own. I also was touching on working conditions--which are a major factor in fulfillment.
So. When I say it does not matter how much I'm being offered? I'm mean precisely that: You don't need to tell me anything whatsoever about the number of digits in that pay check nor what those digits might be. Under the current conditions, it will always and forever regardless of what that number is, no matter how infinitely large, cannot be enough. I don't need to know anything about what the salary might be, it could be in theory infinity and it'd still not be enough.
So, yes, I suppose the pay is too low, in a sense. However, my point is that as long there is no change in what I can expect to deal with? It cannot be anything but too low. Fix the rest, and that will change.
The pay isn't actually what has me not interested in teaching--as multiple people have pointed out, it's got an excellent overall package, assuming that your school system's administrators aren't doing things like pocketing the funds meant for supplies and textbooks. I likely do fall into the pool you'd consider talent, as I both already teach (I've had to deal with a few rounds of "It's not you, it's your teacher" as a tutor) and enjoy teaching.
But. I do not care how much you offer me in pay and benefits, I won't accept a job teaching K12 at a US public school. The rest of the problem is what's chasing me away...and I'm going to be blunt, most of the people you're going to be trying to attract to teaching jobs right now, unless you're suggesting it as a second career, are going to be making their call on the basis of the same things I am. The younger generations don't see pay as the sole indication of how good a job is; fulfillment is important, too, and there's limits to how much money can make up for unpleasant working conditions. (There have been studies supporting this, finding them is being left as a problem for the reader in confidence that if you're on/. you know how to use a search engine.)
Not just that, but it would probably be very easy to treat the value of those licenses as donations for accounting/tax purposes--and the PR might actually be better, long term, since it is starting to seem like mostly wasted effort and money-shuffling.
Slashdot Mirror
And I've taken many theory and practical classes and found way more "cookbook" work in practical classes, without much theory. I will agree that theory class quality can leave quite a bit to be desired.
I found the best balance came from getting both theory and practical at the same time--of course, where I was and in the departments I was taking the most classes within, they tended to pair them as corequisites and they were reasonably-well synced up so you were doing the practical while covering the theory behind it.
General Ed is general ed. However, given the rising illiteracy and innumeracy among "college graduates" one does wonder how many have been paid so much to accomplish so little."
That 'however' is precisely why I say it leaves a lot to be wanted, and the classes which pretty much existed purely to fill in gen ed requirements had a tendency to be not just heavy on theory but on the fluff end of that--you don't have to do that much with the theory, just enough to prove you were present and paying some attention...nothing to prove that you actually understand the topic, and in some cases that may be at least somewhat discouraged.
There’s just about zero chance that some young recent graduate has such a background.
That's a funny thing to say in an industry where drop-outs create world-changing companies. What exactly are you hoping to achieve by deporting skilled, educated workers?
Offhand? Their home countries being able to join us in the information age on a larger, better scale, with local labor able to build, maintain, and expand their infrastructure. It's more likely to happen if locals can do it, than if it is necessary for foreigners to be imported.
Just to be clear: This action is NOT reducing the number of H1-B visas issued. It is reducing the INPUTS to the lottery, not the OUTPUTS. So the same number of visas will be issued, just to different people.
As it should be. Remember, the complaint is about the abuse of the H1-B visa.
Imagine you're running a lottery for seats in a certification program--all entries are supposed to be for people who meet the qualifications, because there's several times as many people applying for the program as there's seats. You've got a total of 50 seats in the program, 500 qualified applicants, and anybody who wins automatically gets a seat reserved for them. The odds of any applicant getting in is 1 in 100.
What happens to the odds of the qualified applicants for getting a seat in the program, if the 4,500 applicants who didn't meet the qualifications are included in the lottery anyway?
Is it fair to the people who actually meet the official qualifications for an H1-B visa to not ensure their chances of getting one are as good as possible, by failing to properly check the applications?
More interesting, and less correct because the facts don't bring in the money like a nice exciting lie does. It's better if we just call them history-themed amusement parks instead of museums.
The nonprofit ones still need to get their money from somewhere; they are not in possession of money trees, and must get people to turn up to stay open.
Besides, some of the history ones already are history-themed amusement parks because people wouldn't donate money if they told the less-palatable truth, and the sad fact is that an entertaining history-themed amusement park might actually more closely approximate the truth than some of what we get as a result.
Because in 23 years, people will look back and say "oh how short sighted of us", and it's a chance for people to re-examine what we think is a good path for humanity; if there's consensus right now that space is going to be millitarised and museums will become for-profit within a few decades, are we as a people ok with that.
For-profit might actually get some museums a bit more interesting. Other parts, though, show a distinct lack of understanding of the base technical requirements--'de-extinction' biologists as a concept is horrible.
Let's start with the basic requirements if you want to bring back a species. You need a good, complete genome with some decent amount of variation, plus a species you can have incubate it to whatever point is necessary--or an artificial female reproductive tract, and we're unlikely to see that one this century. You also need the ability to put a zygote together from scratch which...well, depends among other things on if you care to have the reborn species carry the mitochondrial DNA of its original version or will accept the stuff from whatever ovum you use to start it... If you do, that part might be workable already; otherwise, we're looking at also having to figure out how to get an ovum from pretty much complete scratch.
The current approaches to try to save endangered species focus on maintaining a genetically-healthy and viable population in the wild, plus a decent size of ignoring that evolution means that extinction is a natural process. This probably actually harms the chances of having the necessary genetic databank to attempt a revival...and, really, the question ought to be asked with some if it might not be better to focus on maintaining a healthy, viable population in captivity because later reintroduction will be a markedly more possible feat and certainly less expensive than attempting to make Jurassic Park a reality.
They do - https://www.acs.org/content/ac...
That's confirmation that it's a perk of membership--but I can tell you flat-out that if they're making much of an effort to let potential new members know about it, that's a distinct change from when I was getting my biochem degree. This is literally the first I heard of this particular perk. Now to see what the membership fees for me would be...
That isn't necessarily separate from the OP's observation--you can be quite smart, and still be the person standing around with their thumb rectally inserted when everybody else has realized that the situation requires timely action and therefore certain concerns must be sacrificed if necessary. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough, do not let it lure you into gold-plating at the cost of actually getting the thing done.
Don't let worries about maintainability delay too much deploying an urgent security patch, that can wait for the next version which should have a baked-in solution.
The quality of instruction in theory classes can sometimes leave quite a bit to be desired, and arguably the theory ought to be rolled into the practical skills as they are mutually reenforcing.
Gen Ed, however, can leave a lot to be wanted, especially when that's the sole reason for the class's existence.
We already have laws against stalking, spying, and harrassment. Why do those laws not apply here? Is it that magic word "online" again?
Probably, though you likely to get quite far if what you propose isn't directly about privacy but rather ensuring that the companies gathering the data are legally responsible for any reasonably foreseeable consequences--if nothing else, it might manage to get it to where Facebook has to confront the possibility that, in fact, people are not always going to be friends.
Are you kidding? The Us--public and private--have the same parasitic administration issues that the K12s system does, with the added issues caused by students who typically don't quite realize that loans are not free money--so they'll decide hey, let's go to the more expensive school because its students all get 'free' ponies (and not that other one which spends it money on research & quality instruction) and then they'll be wondering why the fuck they've got so much debt afterwards.
Plus, not all the Us are particularly research-oriented, and the heavily research-oriented ones are actually pretty sucky places to go as a student--students are annoying distractions from doing research there. (I went to one nicely in the middle...and will generally not bother sticking around if the offer seems too good, because I don't want to bother trying to figure out what's off.)
'Publish or perish' just amplifies all the problems involved here, too, because it acts to punish those in academia who want to get their research done to the point where applications are developed, unless they're in one of the handful of fields where you reach that part as part of the paper. Stop the system from only caring that you're publishing lots of papers, even if the research quality is shit. You want the importance placed on the quality and importance of the papers--right now? It doesn't matter if that one paper you published is top-notch work and going to be cited in your field's textbooks, it's only one paper, and they'd rather have the person who has published lots of eminently forgettable low-quality papers.
Until this is fixed? It will not matter one infinitely small bit how much money is getting poured into the system. Damn near nobody is able to invest the time and effort required--more money, therefore, will simply go to generating more papers, still generally leaving developing applications to business.
You go to a research computer, and access scientific journals online. A decent size library will have subscriptions.
And what they don't have, you can get through intra library loan.
Have you ever tried that one? When I was looking at getting some papers that way, I was told it'd be a 6 week wait (for electronic copies) if you're lucky and things go fast. You are are dependent on a library accepting your request, and overall the system seems to be designed with the assumption that nobody using it might actually have any need for any information in a timely manner. (The one time I did use it, it was for something I wanted to read for my own reasons, and I would not have been able to check its status--basically, the only thing I'd get is notice of when it came in. I don't even know if there is a fail state--or if my request would linger in the system until the heat death of the universe if nobody accepted it.)
ACS could do a lot by having access to the papers it owns be cheap or even free to members--and making sure students who could join are aware of this particular benefit.
Why would you assume that the court would come to a logical conclusion?
Because despite your news bite view of the courts they handle thousands of cases across the country daily and the vast majority of them follow a perfectly logical conclusion and thus you never hear about them.
Funny, that. Some of the laws that are getting activists pushing for them being dropped, the basic reason they're against them is because that is not at all the normal result. It's not news, because it's the normal situation--and, really, some of these laws seem to be inherently against logic.
It turns out that 'ability to use basic logic' is not a basic skill among those who hold elected offices.
Not saying it CAN'T be done. Simply that concrete is just a superior building material in terms of ease of use, longevity (the world's oldest concrete structure is sneaking up on its 1900th birthday) and maintenance.
It'd be nice if we hadn't forgotten how to make that kind of cement mix. My house is over a hundred years old, the concrete foundation is crumbling in places. Other than one corner where some idiots hadn't properly sealed the new porch, the wood frame is doing fine.
Actually, I hear we recently rediscovered it--and it's basically 'use saltwater.' Sometimes, it's the stupidly simple things... (The salt changes the structure of the concrete, I suspect somebody more interested in concrete can find the article.)
Honestly it sounds more like a pilot study. fMRIs are fantastic for trying to narrow down what parts of the brain seem to be involved in what, but they're seriously expensive things to run.
Since I expect most people here are more in the engineering side of things--pilot studies are a form of providing proof of concept. It's the cheap(er) version you slapped together in order to demonstrate that your idea actually has a snowball's chance in hell of working. They are not always going to be terribly open about being a pilot study--it's probably safe to expect that anybody who admits it's a pilot study when publishing the results has already secured funding for the actual study itself--so you have to look for tells such as the combo of small sample size and expensive/difficult/finicky processes. It's a toss-up when you're looking at a study that involves, say, effects of brain damage on humans, because the sample size is limited by the unfortunate fact that you must use volunteers & cannot induce the condition yourself.
.
Suicide tends to not be that 'rational choice for rational reasons' that you seem to believe it is. It tends to be an impulsive act, involving a significant amount of high-grade magical thinking--and if you object to religion, you certainly should be objecting to that!
Of the remaining group--well, it might be better to aim more for offering them the ability to do something of value with their death, a satisfying death instead of merely a quick and painless one. There are things out there which are most likely best done by somebody who is not going to mind at all that it will almost certainly kill them.
Some of them seem to be less far left activists and more either targeting that demographic, having some regrettable hiring choices if they were wanting to avoid ending up heading for the far left, or some mix of the two. A few of them I can't really say much about on their political bias because I stopped watching them not because of their politics but more because I have a very low tolerance for people who being surprised and confused and possibly distressed by the discovery that not everybody shares their same rich, Western and generally White culture...nor am I very fond of incompetent flailing attempts at 'understanding.' (That's in quotation marks because I'd certainly hope that an actual attempt to understand a different culture would be less...superficial and flaky.)
This is going off of some of the interesting decisions I've seen them make, incidentally, and using sites which are set up to check for bias and how it affects the behavior of the news media to make sure that the scale in use is balanced.
Well then you are the only advertiser with a conscience. Kudos to you, but the rest of the advertisers think "annoying you" and "advertising" are synonyms.
It's actually a decent portion of the advertisers who think that, and it's both the traditional and probably-true view--after all, just because you might not be in my target demographic or a potential sale now doesn't mean you won't be in the future, or in a position to lose me a sale.
It is, however, easier to confuse 'annoying you' with 'advertising' because it does admittedly increase brand recognition--but that may not necessarily translate into the sort of positive image that will get you sales, and if you get a bad enough image then a brand the consumer has never heard of might still get preferred because it isn't your brand.
Really, if you can still believe that there's no such thing as bad publicity after the recent spate of very public demonstrations of the opposite, you must be living under a very isolated rock.
It is 2017 people. Who is still viewing Youtube without an adblocker???
In 2017, when was the last time you were able to go to a Web page that did not require you to turn off your adblocker?
I think I've only run across a couple, it was 2016 when I saw a lot and that tended to mark the last time I visited that site. I still get to a lot of places, and a few attempts to hold content hostage for my turning off my adblocker may have gone unnoticed because I also require scripts get whitelisted, and none of the places I dropped are particularly missed.
I prefer not having to deal with prying malware off my systems. As long as they don't show awareness and respect for the fact that I don't want to get malware and am actively avoiding vectors? I will be as sympathetic to whining about my use of an adblocker as I would be for a mugger's complaints about 'lost earnings' because I did not have cash on me.
Patreon is the way to go.
Yeah, and you can also become active in pushing for adservs to be more responsible and ethical about things like the malware risks involved. If you are in a position to choose what adserv is used for a site? Try to pick one that at least tries to keep from being a malware vector. Don't just whine about adblockers being used, start doing your part towards making it safe to turn them off or poke holes in.
I honestly would be quite happy to whitelist any ad group that makes a point--openly, publicly, and in both words and actions--of making sure that they don't serve as a malware vector.
If they really wanted my love? Let me also flag offensive ads, ads which are betting that the viewer will forget that they hate them but remember the brand, and say flat-out that I don't & won't for the foreseeable future use that product so stop showing me ads for it.
Is there something special about vaping that might change these chemicals' normal effects on the human body? Going through the list in the blurb...
Benzene, for example, is a gloves-and-hood substance in chem labs, ditto toulene. Cadmium is toxic metal which has turned places into hazmat sites, do I need to say more about it? Formaldehyde is also pretty nasty, and is generally recognized as a poison for a reason; breathing it is highly inadvisable what with it being a poisonous gas, but it's healthier to breathe than the rest of the list... We already know the safety of all of these in other contexts, and you can get the data with just a bit of basic searching...which I've done for you.
The thing that I find interesting is that it ought to be possible to build vapes to not have these problems. We know how to safely produce aerosols, we know pretty damn well how to predict what alterations will happen with heating, and analytical chemistry exists. Instead we just get complaining.
I have been a few places where the ban on vaping was done for practical reasons--it's not sufficiently visually distinct from traditional cigs that you can reliably tell from a distance which is being used, so the property owners have decided as is their right to just ban 'em all in order to simplify things.
Which, incidentally, goes into the whole problem with the "its my right!!1!" thing--that's only true when it's on your private property. That's iffy on public property, and definitely not true on somebody else's private property. Really, not being a douche goes a long way, and some laws pretty much exist simply because critical mass of douches took place.
If you haven't noticed, I wasn't quite talking about fulfillment on its own. I also was touching on working conditions--which are a major factor in fulfillment.
So. When I say it does not matter how much I'm being offered? I'm mean precisely that: You don't need to tell me anything whatsoever about the number of digits in that pay check nor what those digits might be. Under the current conditions, it will always and forever regardless of what that number is, no matter how infinitely large, cannot be enough. I don't need to know anything about what the salary might be, it could be in theory infinity and it'd still not be enough.
So, yes, I suppose the pay is too low, in a sense. However, my point is that as long there is no change in what I can expect to deal with? It cannot be anything but too low. Fix the rest, and that will change.
The pay isn't actually what has me not interested in teaching--as multiple people have pointed out, it's got an excellent overall package, assuming that your school system's administrators aren't doing things like pocketing the funds meant for supplies and textbooks. I likely do fall into the pool you'd consider talent, as I both already teach (I've had to deal with a few rounds of "It's not you, it's your teacher" as a tutor) and enjoy teaching.
But. I do not care how much you offer me in pay and benefits, I won't accept a job teaching K12 at a US public school. The rest of the problem is what's chasing me away...and I'm going to be blunt, most of the people you're going to be trying to attract to teaching jobs right now, unless you're suggesting it as a second career, are going to be making their call on the basis of the same things I am. The younger generations don't see pay as the sole indication of how good a job is; fulfillment is important, too, and there's limits to how much money can make up for unpleasant working conditions. (There have been studies supporting this, finding them is being left as a problem for the reader in confidence that if you're on /. you know how to use a search engine.)
Not just that, but it would probably be very easy to treat the value of those licenses as donations for accounting/tax purposes--and the PR might actually be better, long term, since it is starting to seem like mostly wasted effort and money-shuffling.