datalowe

Yes, thank you. It seemed bizarre to me as I was reading the article that this point is not brought up at all. Of course, it's impossible to perform controlled realistic experiments to disentangle the effects. But to not even acknowledge this crucial limitation in the research makes the reporting and research deeply flawed. The research would really need to take into account each conflict's preconditions, which is a very daunting task, to become more reliable. I understand it's hard to do this research, but it's only fair to demand that researchers temper their conclusions based on to the limitations. That kind of rigorous approach doesn't sell as many books or lead to as many media appearances though, sadly.

It is literally a case study with a single pair of subjects. At first I thought the OP pop sci article was just focusing in on one pair of participants of many. Most of the discussions in threads here seem wholly unwarranted. There are loads of random factors that affect people's development, many of which can't realistically be measured in a study. Maybe one of them happened to become friends with with a classmate that's really into literature and so they started reading a lot! Maybe they are both sensitive to sounds, but only one of them happens to live near an airport, disrupting their sleep at night.

It is not surprising that one particular set of monozygotic twins happens to markedly differ with respect to some traits. There are always outliers in large twin studies too, and researchers don't usually get that hung up about them because everyone knows there are countless factors involved. To be able to have any certainty about the effects of a particular factor you need scale that lets you separate them from the random noise. It's just basic statistics, like what is even anyone doing here. The study itself does make sense, but should be interpreted as extremely exploratory in nature, not something to draw any conclusions from. IMO the researchers themselves are irresponsible in this regard, as they speculate much more than what's warranted in the discussion and conclusions sections. Like, one of their conclusions is "They [the twins] also show that cultural climates can modify values.". First, that is something already widely known and accepted, but second and more importantly, that is not the kind of statement you should make based on a single pair of subjects.

But it's still thanks to the context, just a context outside of school. It's not like s/he suddenly out of the blue started looking for study material in Tagalog and did that. Games are the best motivator (and great due to how interactive they are) No man is an island yada yada. Auf eigener Faust kommt man nicht weit wenn die Faust völlig leer ist oder insert was klugeres here. Btw personally I was helped a lot by both school, emotionally as well as language-wise, and pop media. Yay for nice teachers and peers!

It also doesn't help that the AI companies deliberately use language to make their models seem more human-like and cogent. Saying that the model e.g. "thinks" in "conceptual spaces" is misleading imo. It abuses our innate tendency to anthropomorphize, which I guess is very fitting for a company with that name.

On this point I can highly recommend this open access and even language-wise accessible article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5 (the authors also appear on an episode of the Better Offline podcast)

Well I mean the article says that they're not even going to wait until the "deadline" for so-called self-deportation before they start arresting people who came in under the immigration program:

"But DHS said it retains the authority to target migrants who arrived under this program before the 30-day period lapses. Officials say those prioritized for arrest will include migrants who have failed to apply for another immigration benefit like asylum or a green card."

So they've overnight given themselves the right to arrest people who the day before had a legal right to live in the US. Basically they seem to think the only legal and human rights that exist are those granted by their god-king or Muskolini, and they don't fear the legacy judicial system.

I don't know about direct Russian funding, but it seems like the Russians have long used propaganda tools to generate false support on social media for Jill Stein https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/russians-launched-pro-jill-stein-social-media-blitz-help-trump-n951166 And she has repeatedly chosen to hire/work with people very tightly tied with the MAGA movement https://www.salon.com/2024/09/23/jill-stein-paid-100000-to-a-consulting-firm-led-by-a-suspected-january-6-rioter/

While the two party system is a huge problem, it doesn't seem controversial to say that a very conscious and long-term strategy for getting away from it is necessary, especially now. Why wouldn't anti-democratic forces try to exploit third parties to siphon off and neutralize anti-fascist opinions? I get that the Democrats have loooads of issues, but that doesn't mean just anything else is better. Unfortunately smaller parties can oftentimes be even easier to influence. And even in the most ideal case where all third parties would be good-faith actors you still have the fundamental issue that splintering into smaller groups doesn't work unless they would all agree on supporting the same candidate to win in the current American system. Very frustrating and by design, yes!

I also really liked this part

"[...]I love Teslas," he says. "I'm just trying to share what's going on to better help the engineers to fix this super fast."

He's just so cute, the way he's keeping his copes up despite everything

I'm not quite as convinced as you are that there was that deliberate a strategy to prolong the war and let it fester, and I still think the description of it as just an American proxy war is overly simplistic. But we do seem to agree on many points, most importantly that Ukraine should have gotten, and still should get, a lot more support and not be artificially restrained. Thanks for the chat.

The point was always that whatever "deal" was worked out, unless Ukraine would become part of NATO or have security guarantees with say NATO boots on the ground for decades, Russia would have only used the temporary pause to build up its forces while doing hybrid warfare, then try again in a couple of years. Also, it is misleading to characterize the war in Ukraine as an American proxy war, it ignores the complex relationships between all involved actors and most importantly ignores Ukrainian autonomy. Lastly, Netanyahu did "what Trump said" temporarily because it was in his interest to boost Trump as he expected to soon get Trump's blessing to continue waging war on Palestinians (and it seems even Netanyahu was surprised by how emphatic Trump's approval is).

Now, IMO Biden should have been much bolder in sending more military support to Ukraine and approving long-distance strikes etc., which would have encouraged other NATO allies to do the same. By trying to play it safe, Biden & co. ensured that the conflict would become more drawn out and expand, making things more dangerous for everyone. The Democratic Party and European allies could have used much more war rhetoric, painting Russia as enemy number one, to drum up more popular support at home, but again hesitated. The Biden admin also should have worked with the Ukrainians and other European allies on a realistic, sustainable peace deal rather than talking loosely about how Ukraine needed to "accept" that they would lose terrain while also saying Ukraine's very reasonable security guarantee requests were "unrealistic". But that's very different. To suggest that Biden could have just said "ok stop, now peace" and created something lasting seems utterly out of touch with at least all of Russian politics ever since Putin came to power.

The "about" page indicates that the author is a freelance frontend UI/UX dev, that's recently switched to "helping developers get better with AI" (paraphrased). Nothing about credentials/education related to AI development, only some hobby projects using preexisting AI solutions from what I saw. The post itself doesn't have any sources/links to research about junior devs either, it's all anecdotes and personal opinion. Sure looks like an AI grifter trying to grab attention by ranting about AI, with some pretty lukewarm criticism.

Of course, there are different opinions, but here's my take (as a Swede, but not an expert in politics/history):

The issues didn't start during the last decade. In the 90's, it was politically decided that schools wouldn't be nearly as centrally managed by the state as they had been, instead municipalities would handle most school-related politics and administration locally. It was also decided that parents are allowed to choose more freely where to send their kids. This weakened public schools. Moreover, legislation was introduced (in the 00's I think but I'm not sure) that allows for-profit private schools, which historically AFAIK had been prohibited.

Parents usually don't have to pay anything extra to send their kids to private schools, and for each private school pupil more tax money flows into the private instead of public schools. The private schools are of course incentivized to attract children from families that are well off, since they tend to perform better (boosting the school's score and thus reputation), have parents that can e.g. drive them from a longer distance, and just generally have less issues and so cost and complain less. For instance, it's been reported that some private schools refuse (openly or through loopholes) e.g. special needs pupils since the tax money paid to the school for them isn't worth the cost (and "bad PR", no doubt) of actually giving them a proper education.

Sweden has also had a high rate of immigration the last decades. Immigrant parents understandably tend to not be as savvy about the school system and have less time/resources for getting their kids to "nicer" schools further away. Immigrant kids also tend to require more attention, both due to needing to learn Swedish and because psychological problems, e.g PTSD, are more common among many immigrant groups. Also I haven't seen any studies on this, but IMO the private schools' advertisements (on billboards etc) tend to be very geared towards "white" kids/parents with no immigrant background.

In 2007 a tax benefit for "homework help" among other things was introduced, halving the price parents have to pay for private tutors at home. This again benefits families that are well off and lets private companies in education siphon tax money.

All this means a cycle of segregation seen in so many countries. Public schools are burdened with students that require more resources, while private schools do everything they can to snatch up low-maintenance pupils. This makes private schools seem to perform better and gives public schools bad reputations. Racism and class discrimination also plays into all this of course.

It also doesn't help that teachers' salaries and social standing have decreased, partly due to the same general patterns.

This degradation of the public school system has continued during both left-wing and right-wing governments, though it's often accelerated during right-wing governance. For instance, the social democrats party was the one to push in the 90's for shifting responsibilities from the state to municipalities. There is an ever growing issue with corruption across the political spectrum (but worst/most blatant on the right), where it's become quite common for politicians to push for decisions that benefit private companies, then retiring from politics and joining said companies' boards etc.

Do you mean you rigorously went through a hundred articles, asking DeepSeek to summarise them and then got relevant experts in the subject of the articles to rate the quality of answers? Could you tell us what percentage of the summaries that were found to introduce errors then? Literally 0?

Or do you mean that you tried having DeepSeek summarise a couple of articles, didn't see anything obviously problematic, and figured it is doing fine? Replacing rigorous research and journalism by humans with a couple of quick AI prompts, which is the core of the issue that the article is getting at. Because if so, please reconsider how you evaluate (or trust others' evaluations of) information tools which might help or help destroy democracy.