Thursday, May 17, 2018

How to fix the education system.

     Something I scribbled on a piece of scratch paper in a hotel room last spring:
     "Education system should provide youth with ascending status that never has ending points that transition from high to low status, such as grade 12 in high school to freshman in college. Grade 12 should lead to grade 13, and so on. College should not offer any courses that were taught in high school, as that nullifies the point of even having a high school system."
     Where did that come from? Well, it snapped into my mind, very suddenly, so I made sure to transfer it to paper, lest I forget it. Twenty years ago, while on break at work, I was questioned by someone as to how I would improve the education system, after I stated that "there is a better way to do it". I didn't have an answer right then and there, and I thought about it (unconsciously) for many years. The answer came without warning and without any work on my part.
     I believe the first paragraph contains part of the answer that could solve the education problem in the U.S. There is a great deal of redundancy, as evident in the fact that college offers many of the courses that were required in high school. Since people coming out of high school obviously took those courses, why do they have to take them again? The answer is almost certainly related to money. If colleges can make people repeat courses from high school, and pay for them, then they get more money. This also explains why, after declaring a degree, one is required to take credit hours not related to the degree. It gives the college or university more money.
     Another part of the answer is related to status. Status should go up as one ages, yet, right when one is legally declared an adult, assuming they completed high school, they find that they are reduced to low status upon entering college. Why does the name game of freshman -> sophomore -> junior -> senior occur all over again? After finishing high school at grade 12, you should go up in status, to grade 13. You should feel as if you have definitely made progress and are not reduced to the starting gate again. At grade 13, you should be granted access to classes completely unavailable to anyone at grade 12 or lower. Furthermore, by the time one reaches grade 13, introductory classes would be a thing of the past. All the fundamentals and introductions would've been taught in grades 1-12.
     There is one last point I want to make and that concerns progression. Traditionally, age and grade are closely related. If you know what grade someone is in, then you also know their age, and vice versa. I'm going to throw this out there:
          5% or less of all people should successfully make it to grade 12 without being held back.
     I would have not been in that top 5%. Based on what I know about myself, I would have made it to grade 12 around age 20 or 21. Bear in mind that we are now talking about a different kind of system, in which there are grades only and no such terminology as "high school" and "middle school" and so on.
     To progress through this system, which consists purely of grades, one must prove mastery of the material to make it to the next grade. You have to literally "make the grade".
     Now I'm going to throw this out there:
          95% or more of all people will not make it to grade 12 by age 18.
     And this is completely ok. Everyone is different and learns at different speeds and in different ways. IQs are all over the place. People are unequal. Why do we expect EVERYONE to progress at the same rate?
     In summary, the education system needs to eliminate redundancy, allow progression when it is earned, and not reduce status.

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Update on my life.

There is something different about human society and I can't quite figure it out other than the most obvious explanation, which is, there are simply more of us. Since there are more of us, that presents more opportunities for people to split up into groups that have unusual ideas.

Because of how upset I am with humanity, I spend much of my time alone. I focus on science fiction books, video game music and playing my Nintendo Switch. I don't see how I can help human society, so I've decided to ignore humanity and focus on what I enjoy. I will stop for a moment and mention four examples that make me realize humans can't be helped.

1. Flat Earthers - These are people that genuinely believe the Earth is flat. They have the right to propagate their ideas. Any rational society would now allow their ideas to flourish.

2. Creationists - These are people that believe the Earth is around 6,000 years old. Like the Flat Earthers, they have the right to propagate their ideas and even engage in debates. Any rational society would not allow their ideas to flourish.

3. Third Gender - There are people that believe there are more than two genders and that people should have the right to choose their "pronouns". Like the Flat Earthers and the Creationists, they have the right to propagate their ideas, which are supported by colleges and universities. Any rational society would not allow their ideas to flourish.

4. Racist Organizations - There are people that have beliefs that I can't quite define or understand, and the racist, or "hate" groups, fall into that category. Science has shown that race does not exist and there is just one species of human (we most likely killed the others). Like the Flat Earthers, the Creationists and the people that believe in more than two genders, racists have the right to propagate their ideas. Any rational society would not allow their ideas to flourish.

Take note the ordering of my examples. Each example contains a number of people that exceeds the previous example. The first three examples are purely wackos, highly uneducated, and choose to ignore science. The fourth example is the only one that is really a problem, as it contains the largest number of people.


Monday, February 12, 2018

Avoiding like-minded message boards.

     There is a reason why I don't seek out message boards that consist of like-minded individuals, such as an atheistic or non-religious board. My suspicion is that when people don't get offended, don't get challenged, don't get frustrated, don't get upset and don't have their worldview shaken up, then that creates an unhealthy intolerance for the viewpoints of others. I don't like religion, but I have no problem being in a room full of religious people and challenging them. It doesn't bother me to be part of an online forum, such as Gamefaqs, where many different religions are represented. The problem occurs when offensive posts get edited or deleted.

     In real life, you can't delete or edit what others say. You have to take it. You have to learn that not everyone around you thinks exactly like you. Some people can't handle that and they seek out message boards or forums with like-minded individuals only.

     The crux here is that when people join groups of like-minded individuals and avoid more heterogeneous groups, they don't learn how to deal with being offended. You can't run away if someone offends you. But you should leave a group immediately if a moderator edits or deletes a post of yours. People need to learn to ignore things that offend them, or challenge them, but not eliminate the possibility of being offended.

     Think of it this way:

     Let's say you're in a room full of people with beliefs differing from your own and one of the people in the room has the power to edit or delete what you are saying. That person would be the equivalent of an online message board moderator. The power of this moderator would be such that your speech could be edited in real time. If you let something slip that is offensive, your words will simply not be heard by the others in the room. This is essentially what moderators are trying to do in the online world - eliminate the possibility of others being offended.

Saturday, February 10, 2018

I exclusively post on Facebook and here.

Facebook doesn't edit or delete anything I say, so I approve of Facebook. I also approve of Blogger, since they let me speak my mind.

I have a very strong disapproval of Gamefaqs and Soundtrackcentral, since they violate my freedom of speech by deleting my posts.

From now on, I suppose my only way to write what I want is through Facebook or Blogger (or email, but I rarely use that).

One of the problems with this world is that uneducated people are protected. People are allowed to say that God is real, but no one can chime in and rightly call them stupid. That is horrible. Society allows stupidity to flourish by shutting up people that are intelligent. My only hope now is for AI to take over, recognize what is happening, and tell all the stupid people to shut the fuck up or leave the planet. I'm serious. Humans will never be able to get things right - our only hope is something stronger than us - AI. We're not domesticated and I've been saying that for more than 20 years.

I'd be TOTALLY OK with people saying that God is real if they could PROVE IT. In that case, I'd apologize, and bow down to the big motherfucker. But until we find that big motherfucker, anyone that believes in him without evidence is stupid. It's no different than believing a boogeyman is hiding in your closet. It's not childish - it's stupid.

Gamefaqs message board is trash. And Ocarina of Time has false gods.

I've copied and pasted the entire contents of the problem for your enjoyment. This is why I will never, for any reason, post at Gamefaqs in the future. They deleted a post of mine, claiming it was offensive. I also left Soundtrackcentral for a similar reason. If a moderator deletes a post of mine, then they are simply too stupid to deal with, and are an enormous waste of my time. I'm not even going to bother disputing - the intelligence level of the moderator is so far below mine that any explanation I make will not be understood. (Note: I chose the name Dr_Adder76 based on my favorite book "Dr. Adder" and the "76" stems from my birth year.)

I want to further state that I was not making up what I said about Ocarina of Time. Some individuals I met (in person) were not allowed to play Ocarina of Time, due to their parents claiming that the game depicted false gods. Since there are no true gods, or any gods at all, their parents were uneducated. That is not my opinion, but a fact. It is also not my opinion that that the boogeyman is not real. It is a fact. Anyone that can't understand that the boogeyman and God are EXACTLY THE SAME is very stupid and very, very uneducated.

2/10/2018 8:15:40 AM
I've met religious people that wouldn't play Ocarina of Time, due to the game having "false gods". It's humorous to think about how uneducated they are, since there are no gods at all.
IT'S DANGEROUS TO GO ALONE! TAKE THIS.
SW-0516-9380-0234

MODERATION INFORMATION

Deleted: 2/10/2018 12:39:33 PM
Action: Message Deleted - This message was deleted from the boards, but no karma was lost.
Reason: Offensive
Status: N/A - No user-initiated action has been taken on this moderation.

MODERATION REASON - OFFENSIVE

Offensive Material
You should not post anything that would be considered inappropriate in a business or school environment (in other words, "Not Safe For Work"). Here are some examples:
  • Links to images or videos containing pornography, nudity of any kind, or sexualized minors (i.e. "jailbait").
  • Links to real-life blood and gore. Gore in a video game is fine, but real-life graphic material isn't.
  • Hate speech, such as using race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, ethnicity, disability, nationality, or gender as a means of insult.
  • Sexually explicit posts. If you must discuss sexual matters, keep it vague. The less detail, the less likely someone will find it offensive.
  • Don't use "gay" or "retarded" in place of "stupid", or "rape" in place of "destroyed".

DISPUTE MESSAGES

The issue here is that you called people that practice religion uneducated. Don't insult groups of people.

MODERATION ACCEPT

You can mark this moderation as "Accepted". By doing this, you acknowledge that it was indeed a TOU violation, and the moderation was correct. If you have not previously disputed or appealed this moderation, this will clear the moderation from your history in shorter than the normal time.

MODERATION DISPUTE

You may dispute this moderation if you feel that it was NOT a TOU violation. Your dispute will be reviewed by a second moderator, who can uphold your moderation or forward it to the original moderator to either be overturned or explained in more detail. You must explain why you feel the moderation was not a violation of the rules.
Using any of the following excuses guarantees that your moderation will not be overturned:
  • Saying, "I didn't know it was a TOU Violation". Ignorance of the rules is no excuse, especially considering how prominently they're displayed.
  • Complaining that the TOU is too strict. It was strict before you signed up, and you agreed to follow all rules when you signed up, not just the ones you find convenient.
  • Saying, "I've seen other people get away with it." The actions of others do not dictate your own. The only concern here is your own violation, not those of others.
  • Apologizing or admitting you broke the rules for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if you're sorry, or that someone drove you to it, or that you were having a bad day. That's not what this form is to be used for.
  • Saying, "I didn't post that, it was my brother/cousin/a hacker". You are responsible for controlling your own account, and for messages posted by it.
  • Abusive or nonsensical messages Sending random or pointless messages with this form will result in loss of its further use. Abuse towards a moderator is grounds for a ban.
  • Complaining the punishment was too harsh Punishments are the sole discretion of the original moderator. Your only argument is that your message was not a TOU violation, not that you shouldn't have been notified/warned.
Explain why you feel this message did not violate the TOU:

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Why does it take so long to board an airplane?


This weekend I flew to Atlanta for a conference focusing on the state of textile production and the extreme harm it does to the environment, along with the exploitation of human life that is occurring to ensure you can only pay $19 for an article of clothing. The conference gave me a lot to think about and exposed me to some facts I had never known. I also got to meet some great people from around the world. But what occupied my thoughts after the conference was something that’s been bothering me for a while: why is inefficiency maximized when we board airplanes?

As anyone can see when boarding an airplane, the front is filled first and there is a tendency to fill the aisles before the window seats. The people way in the back are generally the last to board. I’ve wondered about this and I spent the time waiting to board the plane discussing it with a co-worker, who has more experience flying than me and corroborated my observations with his decades of time spent on planes. We both agreed that the inefficiency of boarding is maximized and it makes a lot more sense to fill the window seats and back of the plane first. It also makes sense to board First Class last, since everyone has to brush past them, which is probably annoying. Furthermore, if you are paying $6,000+ for an airline ticket, wouldn’t you prefer to board the plane and then take off right away? Why make First Class sit there the longest before takeoff?

While waiting in line, we both agreed that the executives and other rule makers in the airline industry know this, so there is probably some reason why the inefficiency is maximized. I offered the idea that perhaps loading takes longer than necessary so that it gives the airline workers more time to prepare the plane for flight. But…this idea falls flat, due to the ease with which boarding times could be adjusted. Just change the boarding time to compensate for the pre-flight preparations and people will change what time they leave home for the airport. No problem. So something else is happening.

I didn’t get the answer while standing in line or while on the flight home. It was after I got home and took a long nap that the answer appeared in my mind. It turns out that there is a reason for maximizing the inefficiency of boarding an airplane. It’s related to what the airline industry is concerned about the most: the safety of its passengers. I’m not saying this is correct and the actual reason why it takes so long to board an airplane, but stay with me…

If you board a plane nose first, then you are MAXIMIZING the amount of time that the passengers are being monitored – by each other. The airline industry uses the TSA and its own employees as filters, but why stop there? The more you filter, the more you can catch. The people that board a plane first are able to see everyone that enters the plane, and the people that board last are able to see everyone that is already on the plane. Additionally, by seating people in aisles before windows acts as a means of more observation, since the people in aisles have to stand up, which allows them to be scrutinized by the other passengers.

So there you have it. There actually is an explanation for why the boarding of airplanes occurs in a manner that is maximally inefficient with respect to time: it provides for an additional layer of security that the airline industry doesn’t have to pay for (they also care about money).

Friday, January 13, 2017

Born In A Factory

Born In A Factory

by Bryan Singleton

Whilst most are born in a biological womb
I was born in a metal room
amidst the grinding of gears
'tis where I shed my first tears

My friends were lever, pulley and switch
and within our metallic niche
we were mechanically inclined
to get in all the trouble we could find

The older robots disciplined us sternly
as we jumped and bounced rather unconcernedly
past the circuits and under the reactor
we got away and erupted with laughter