They don't have to actively cultivate it but they should remove the walls between it. There's a lot of red tape/administrative confusion at most schools if you want to do anything interdisciplinary, especially if you want to cross more than two disciplines. Institutions should be more like buffets for the polymath. If I want to interlink say landscape architecture, sculpture, acoustics, materials science and biology I shouldn't need more than one signoff much less the 5 it would probably take to do work in something like that at most universities.
The way to 'beat' the system's hard testing requirements is to make the interdisciplinary programs more involved, more quantitative, and just be more thorough and engaging, including soft skills elements.
I think the best outcome is to have such students crush their standardized tests by outperforming them due to having a higher baseline because of the interdisciplinary program's curriculum.
<font> was deprecated in, I think, the HTML 4 spec. That was published in 1999. Not a great signal to send anyone looking to hire you and checking your source code! And inline styles are just another way of using CSS!
There is a "here's ours" link in the first sentence on the homepage. Sadly the css hides all it's link styling. (Proper "brutalist webdesign" would have that as underlined blue text)
I saw the reply chain and I feel like there's some fundamental misunderstandings.
I don't think GP means adding links is spam, they're saying the links themselves are spam (wt definition 2, content automatically generated for marketing purposes) because that's what they are.
They're saying it's crass (wt definition 2: materialistic, or 1: lacking discrimination) because the goal of TFA is to move away from the machine-curated overly-commercialized impersonal/mechanical web and bring back a web focused on human touch. Creating a list with those commercial, machine-facing pages misses that goal.
They're not saying it's bad - obviously the only way someone would view your link page is if someone posted the link page somewhere of interest to them, it's not like you're pushing it in their faces. In fact, I think they thought the juxtaposition interesting and metaphoric for current social forces.
It's possible that you are an SEO geek and find new SEO marketing pages exciting, and have a circle of friends you share marketing pages with, maybe over coffee, in which case the one who misunderstood everything is me.
[edit] @wizzwizz4 Is it crass to edit your comment multiple times (with no declaration) to address a reply to your comment?
Lol. Thats how the site works. It asks you for a URL and a title for the link. It’s my page, my account, so I linked to my site when trying it out. C’mon. I’m not going to argue about it anymore. Y’all can keep downvoting me if you want to.
That would indeed be crass; but I thought my edits came in before your reply. I apologise if they didn't.
To actually address your comment: "my page" and "my account" are irrelevant. (You're not entitled to anything on someone else's server, except in special cases.) If you're linking those pages because you would like those they're relevant to to visit them, perception matters. If not… well, the perception of "spam" can lead people to treat your site as spammy. (Related: https://www.kjartan.co.uk/.)
I know I said I was done, but, let me get this straight. If I sign up for a website that was created for people to sign up to save links, and in doing so it requires you to submit a URL and a title for the link - and I use the page title as the title for the link: 1) I’m not entitled to do that and 2) It means my website is similar to a geocities page?
Interesting, really! Yes. And I should not step into a bar fight! ;-)
You are both right!
I love that you posted the link. You made it easy for me to get the point of the site as I did not want to use my mail. You effectively lowered my barrier of entry and I thank you for that.
Buuut. You did do the equivalent of just hitting "asdf" on the keyboard. I just put in "my own site". That was not clear to me up front either. I "felt" it "spammy" as well.
While disclaimers are often overused this would however had been nice. "Here you go (just dumb links to my own site)". That would actually have encouraged me even more to visit you.
Someone on the Internet was wrong. Please, no knives :-D
I haven't wanted to wade into this because I want people to use and experience the site in the way they want but also I am kinda interested in the discussion about what kind of "rules" should exist.
Honestly, I appreciate @Cabinguy for taking the initative to show people how it works and if the price of admission is some links to his stuff all the better. Furthermore, this is exactly what it is for. I guess in some ways it IS spammy but that's sort of the point is the market your own links. Generally this url then gets put in your instagram / tiktok / whatever bio that only allows one link.
I like that @WizzWizz4 (the greatest of the WizzWizzes in my opinion) was defending the "sanctity" of my site but also probably more importantly to them this site. However, I just don't think it is needed here. As the website was used as exactly it was intended.
You've generalised in a direction that erases the distinctions I'm trying to highlight. I'm talking about perception (specifically, perceived spamminess), and you're talking about what is permitted. If you don't care about the perception, then that's fine and you can safely ignore me.
1) I'm entitled to pour custard on my head. Doesn't mean that will achieve my goals if I do it in an investor meeting. 2) Sadly, I'm not comparing your page to the positive aspects of Kjartan Poskitt's homepage. Look at the bottom row of links, and the analogy should become clearer.
At least the links have nofollow on them (so only the ignorant/lazy/fraudulent SEO bottomfeeders will try to abuse this. Which I guess, to a first approximation, is "all of them"...)
American doomers generally underestimate how much better we have it than the rest of the developed world on just about every economic measure - income, wealth, employment, etc.
Like sure the EU, healthcare & education is cheap/free, but your taxes at the low end will are double to pay for that. And they pay nurses similar to what we pay fry cooks. Even higher pay places like London, UK pay 1/3 to 1/2 what you can make in NYC or SF for similar jobs.
Never seen anything like it really. Over a £12mm handout they chopped the head off one of the most important visa endorsing bodies with no real plan to replace it. I'm sure they'll scramble to find one but the absolute madness of it absolutely reflects the entirety of what's going on in UK government at the moment.
In the interest of moving the Overton window, I've yet to hear a good, logical reason why we don't allow the free movement of people between administrative states.
From a US perspective, I think it’s because people enter on travel visas and do not leave.
I had a coworker from India who was a naturalized citizen for 5-10 years and he was trying to get travel visas for his parents to visit. He had applied many times and been denied each time. We talked about it and he said that the reason given was that the state department considered his parents a risk to not leave at the end of their visit. Comically, when I complained about how that was wrong and his parents would obviously go back he said “100% they will stay, I don’t really blame the visa people. My in laws stayed on a travel visa years ago and are still here.”
There’s also a reciprocity issue that’s sort of chicken and egg. India didn’t grant visas easily back in 2005 because the US didn’t grant their citizens visas.
The question isn't that much "why don't we accept all travel visas" but "why don't we accept all immigrants".
People are talking about the "risk that they stay" like it's something bad to have too many immigrants. And it ended up like some common sense idea. But what if it's not?
Did California or New York suffer from getting people moving from all the "country side" state? Did the US suffer from their immigration waves when they had open borders, and all you needed to get in was a medical exam on Ellis Island?
I think there’s pretty common and clear data on why unlimited immigration is harmful to the receiving country [0] (tl;dr; lowers wages and increases costs for non-immigrants).
The question is whether it’s worth it for the obvious benefit to immigrants. So it may be a net benefit when factoring the improvements to people who immigrate in.
The US benefited greatly from open immigration 100+ years ago because they weren’t that great and there wasn’t much to lose. So it’s apples to oranges of open immigration then to open immigration now. Back then there were no government services and land was literally given out for free.
Same thing happened to my country. In the 90's, the US was a lot more welcoming. But because a lot of tourists stayed, it is a lot harder now to get a tourist visa.
Just move to any place that's had its workforce, welfare system and social order decimated by impoverished immigrants and given enough time to amass some awful experiences, you'll be able to list your own reasons.
Many parts of the UK, and half of mainland Europe? Was ongoing and in decline in some places, but become worse since the Ukraine crisis which has exacerbated, as both wealthy and poor are arriving en masse straining limited resources.
Sure, in a country with unused land, untapped resources, and infrastructure that can easily adapt, it could (potentially) result in growth and prosperity for all. But much of overcrowded Europe doesn't meet the prerequisites.
How do migrants decimate the workforce? Wouldn't they add to the workforce? (Though I do agree that eg the German policy to ban asylum seekers from working while at the same time enrolling them in welfare is asinine. The devil finds work for bored young man.)
Enrolling migrants in the welfare system is a choice. It's easy to restrict the welfare system to citizens only.
Social order is a bit too nebulous to make a comment.
Migrants from poorer countries have lower standards of living, and often able to claim exclusive subsidies. When a job market is saturated with people willing to do jobs for way less, the existing workforce gets pushed out.
Country level this mightn't change much initially, as the existing workforce moves where they maintain their income. But on a local level it's disruptive, and if not held in check flows up to country-level. (A "brain-drain".)
Labour compensation is mostly decided by labour productivity. Many software engineers are so in love with their craft, that they would work for free. Instead, they are handsomely rewarded, because (in the limit) competitions bids up their wages to their level of productivity.
(Conversely, just because I am used to a high standard of living, doesn't mean that I will automatically gain high pay.)
Does your theory about newcomers pushing people out of the existing workforce also apply to the situation in the 20th century in the US when women started having careers outside the home? Why or why not?
It's not a theory, it's experience - and not just mine.
The situations in the US, especially historically, are very different to those in other parts of the world, especially now.
Yet, even in the US, I see even illegal immigrants right now are being given all manner of bonuses and incentives - free mobile phones, for a recently well-publicised example.
In the UK and Europe immigrants are given free housing and other often monetary benefits not available to ordinary citizens. This, plus their willingness to live in, for example, roach-infested council housing for free or cheap (in the UK), gives them a huge edge in the job market that slowly decimates an area.
There have been very hard times for businesses recently, what do you think they will do when a person turns up offering to do the same job for much less?
Not in my area of work, but in terms of more fundamental employment. All the local faces you see begin changing to those of immigrants, and the entire dynamic and general safety of the small village you once called home shift into something completely alien. Generally, crime goes up, higher-end businesses and talent leave, and the place becomes a ghetto compared to what it was before.
It's not about immigration per se, it's just about the amount of it.
It's accelerated all over Europe recently. It's even headlining the news regularly here as "the migration crisis".
It's not a controversial or unusual thing to think that migrants are causing problems. Historically they're one constant thing that has in Europe.
It's also not at all theoretical - outside perhaps of the safe bubble of comfort those in less volatile situations end up thinking is a universal reality manufacturable by their ideologies.
It's a reality sure, but it's not universal. And not all ideologies work everywhere and when applied to all people.
I have heard this claim before, but I haven't been able to find any strong evidence of this. Can you provide some links to places this has happened to? Developed countries specifically.
If you're looking at country-level data it may be too broad and so harder to identify, only one order away from pointlessly looking for the same effect in "the whole world". You need granularity, where the effects are seen.
For example, small UK villages presently having emotion-filled community meetings unable to cope with the negative effect of sudden influxes of 1000's of allotted refugees radically changing every aspect of their home.
But why require evidence, when the basic math has it:
You have x number of people with y number of resources. What will happen if you increase x without also increasing y?
Because of the asymmetry of prosperity? Movement is gonna be one-sided from a lot of less prosperous countries. I think this list clearly reflects that: you are ranked higher if movement is close to equilibrium (you have a country lots of people also want to move to or not a lot of people want to leave).
1. Large-scale free movement of people between administrative states is called "an invasion". Why doesn't Ukraine just let Russians walk into Kiev?
2. Because it would lead to further concentration and centralization of power and money and influence and insanely expensive real estate in the hands of even fewer.
3. Because it is nice to live in a community of people that speak the same language, have a shared culture, and can interact according to some shared norms. I understand this is already lost in Western urban centers, so cultural homogeneity not valued anymore. But those who have it, value it.
> I understand this is already lost in Western urban centers
I don't want to accuse anyone of lying to you on the internet ... but as I've had no problem interacting according to shared norms (with varied languages and varied cultures) in many* Western urban centers, I will suggest you may wish to reconsider the veracity of your sources.
* eg.
Amsterdam
Barcelona
Boston
Edinburgh
Hamburg
London
Los Angeles
Milan
New York
Paris
Salzburg
Seattle
Vancouver
Source: I was born in Toronto, and have been to many of the Western cities you mentioned, and didn’t know anything else until I moved to culturally homogeneous Ukraine. The difference is night and day. Life is just more meaningful and I have a much stronger relationship with people living around me.
I would prefer Bangladesh to Toronto anytime (and yes I have actually travelled extensively in Bangladesh, and I am NOT ethnically Bengali) just because of the cultural homogeneity. There is no place on Earth I hate more than Dubai because of the cultural potpourri. Maybe it’s just me, but I strongly prefer cultural homogeneity over everything else, even risking my life in a warzone right now (Kyiv) because I love being part of a well-defined centuries-old cultural heritage.
Fair enough; good luck! I hope to visit Одеса* some day (but not as a war zone).
* in my head-canon, the "swarthy moldovan" of Смуглянка fame is not necessarily an ethnic moldovan, but possibly a vineyard worker from the Moldavanka slum (as it was then) of Odesa.
1. Immigrants are a net positive for the welfare state because you don't have to pay for their education and all their young years where they don't produce anything. They come ready to work and pay taxes.
2. Expats who only speak English and not the local language are the one who have no trouble getting a visa anyway. To take the example of France, the countries from where people want to migrate (and can't even come with a tourist visa) are mostly African French speaking countries.
Man, did Zweig ever have an ear for lyrically lush phrasing. His and Garet Garrett's polemics against strident nationalism unfortunately fell upon deaf ears.
Well considering one general way of defining the purpose of a nation state is to provide for the security, economic/social/public welfare, and administration of justice for its citizens - its hard to see mass migration from certain states to others as aligning with those obligations.
The current politics around this issue is not simply about free movement. It is about economics. For example, it is easy to travel to Denmark, using Denmark as an example of an "enlightened" state. However, if you intend to stay for more than 3 months, you must secure work/residency before even arriving. State benefits are also available only to citizens and others of certain legal status, with more limited benefits available to EU citizens.
The actual question that is being debated is allowing free movement into this country while at the same time providing full benefits (welfare, housing, health, etc) without requiring job/work permit/etc.
The same reason that has been true since the beginning of civilization - resources are limited.
Also, not all cultures align. Hundreds of millions of people are very much against some of the values that you may hold dear. If enough of them become your neighbors, you may be forced to align to their values.
Sure, I can't imagine it being too difficult to compromise the keys for some first world country.
But there's no need to bother, you won't get busted at an airport because the chip of your passport failed. If they were suspicious, they'd just go through a document verification checklist and see if your passport has the correct physical features. Check out the PRADO glossary for example https://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/prado-glossary/prad...
A bunch of EU countries still issue non-biometric passports, even if with limited validity periods.
Same reason you do not invite local “unhoused” meth addict to live in your spare bedroom. There are significant negative consequences from crime to destruction of high trust society.
reply