The startup was a choice people made. The business plan was a choice. Executing the plan (or failing to execute it) was a choice. Accepting a job at a startup is a choice. Choosing to do an IPO is a choice.
The fact that they came across the start up in the first place had no element of luck?
The fact that they were born with the genetics to be smart enough to contribute to it was fully within their control?
The fact that they weren't killed in a car accident when they were 12 was due to their agency?
Success is mostly attributable to luck, and ignoring that is just an exercise in outsized ego & shows a sense of agency that borders on the absurd.
> Did they "come across" it in their mom's basement?
No, they came across it by being in the right place at the right time, supported by habits and behaviours that were mostly determined by their environment.
> You don't need to be a genius to be successful. Doing drugs and alcohol is also sure to reduce your smarts.
Some people are just not born with the brains to "make it". I know people who will never be able to contribute to a high growth field like ours who are excellent nurses, childcare workers and teachers. This, yet again, isn't decided by agency but by circumstance.
> You can blame your parents for your life up until 18. After that, it's up to you.
I'll remember that the next time a drunk driver tbones me.
> Baloney. Successful people 1) make their own luck 2) make it easy for luck to find them.
Our attitudes, talents and disposition are a sum of the actions we have taken, and experiences that have influenced us. Those actions are informed by our previous attitudes, talents and disposition. The experiences aren't in our control completely either. It's a feedback loop that we have minimal control over.
You can't honestly tell me that you'd come to the exact same conclusion that you are now if you hadn't had gone through what made you you. Just as I couldn't claim to come to my conclusion if I didn't have my experiences.
You're obviously successful mate. Just remember that even if some people can make it to your position, that doesn't mean everyone will. Most people do the best they can given the hand they're dealt, and that's okay. Enjoy your full house.
> You can't honestly tell me that you'd come to the exact same conclusion that you are now if you hadn't had gone through what made you you.
Yeah, I can. There is nothing particularly special about me or my background (lower middle class). I know lots of people with the same attitudes I have - all have survived failure and went on to success.
> I'll remember that the next time a drunk driver tbones me.
My dad told me he was once driving on a 2 lane country road, when a drunk passed him at high speed in a corvette. There was a stop light up ahead, and the drunk stopped at the light. My dad cautiously stopped about a quarter mile behind him. Good thing he did, because the drunk took off at full throttle in reverse.
More generally, there is a technique called "defensive driving", which is not merely following the traffic laws, but keeping an eye out for threats. I don't drive drunk, I don't get in a car with drunk drivers, I watch for erratic drivers and stay well clear, I wear my seat belt tight at all times (that one saved my life), and when I brake I check my rear view mirror, and have pulled off on the shoulder as the driver behind me hit the guy in front of me. I look both ways when crossing an intersection, even when I've got the green. I stay off the road on New Years Eve, and am generally on extra alert on the road after the bars close.
> It's a feedback loop that we have minimal control over.
You can change your thoughts and attitudes. They are under your control.
People aren't doing the best they can if they believe their lives are victims of chance rather than consequences of their choices.
I bet if I knew the details of your life, I could point out the choices you made that decided things for you.
> I know lots of people with the same attitudes I have - all have survived failure and went on to success.
Yes, however those attitudes aren't derived from the ether are they? They'd be informed by circumstance and background. You can "choose" to take an attitude towards something much like a rock "chooses" to fall when dropped. If your prior beliefs and experiences would have led you down the same rationalisation for that choice every time, is it actually a choice?
> re: defensive driving
Defensive driving covers both how to avoid bad situations and how to recover from them IIRC. The implication there being that defensive driving is risk mitigation, not elimination. You're still relying on factors outside of your control to keep yourself safe.
> You can change your thoughts and attitudes. They are under your control.
idk man, hormones are a bitch and genetics predisposing people to addiction and suicide say otherwise. You do the best you can, but looking at every situation and stating that everything is a consequence of choice is assuming that some people's faculties aren't compromised from the start. Things like CBT can help, but not everyone is self aware enough to understand that cognitive distortions exist let alone treat them.
> People aren't doing the best they can if they believe their lives are victims of chance rather than consequences of their choices.
I'm sure you would find dozens of people per successful person with the same mindset as you described, purely due to a knowledge or talent gap. They'd see the same choice, make the wrong one where we'd make the right one and then suffer for it. Feedback loop, little control.
> I bet if I knew the details of your life, I could point out the choices you made that decided things for you.
So could I, but only because I made the bad choices based on the available information and influences in the first place. It's a feedback loop.
I mean, I eat dinner every night now so it's not like I'm not successful.
> however those attitudes aren't derived from the ether are they?
People choose their attitudes. I changed several of mine that were unhelpful.
> hormones are a bitch and genetics predisposing people to addiction and suicide say otherwise
I never said making choices was easy.
> I made the bad choices based on the available information and influences in the first place
It's always someone else's fault? The Marines have no tolerance for excuses. One takes responsibility. I'm not a Marine, but I admire them. I've had the privilege of working with some, and enjoyed their "no excuses" attitude and behavior. I'm not surprised the Marines are winners.
> it's not like I'm not successful
You also get to choose what success means for you.
> People choose their attitudes. I changed several of mine that were unhelpful.
The literal idea that people can change is one you have to learn on either reflection or outside influence. You do realise that, right? If that idea isn't in your vocabulary, it just isn't an option.
>> hormones are a bitch and genetics predisposing people to addiction and suicide say otherwise
> I never said making choices was easy.
When in that position, the most "logical" choice is usually a hit or a noose. It feels like you ignored the point about reasoning capacity being compromised in the first place due to whatever reason. Alternatively - I met a street preacher who was convinced god wanted him to do things he didn't want to (homelessness, etc..). Did he meaningfully have a choice, or does this fall under the "no excuses" doctrine too?
>> I made the bad choices based on the available information and influences in the first place
> It's always someone else's fault?
I'm not asserting fault here. I'm just talking about state diagrams.
Are you implying that people can make choices without knowing they exist? You only learn about possibilities and consequences from either external influence or experience. The mere idea of "no excuses" expects people to grow from their _previous experience_. You know, taking feedback from previous experience and having it inform future ones. Coming to reasonable conclusions based on that experience. It's a feedback loop.
> You also get to choose what success means for you.
I mean, besides my issue with the whole choose thing yeah, expectations for success moderate what you consider successful.
I think there's a lot to be said about the restrictions you put on a system when it comes to design.
I like Outer Wilds! It's fun, I'm currently playing through it. However, Celeste is the more mechanically interesting game when you combine the intentionally limited movement and the forgiving nature of its levels. My 9yo is currently trying to work her way through it, yet gives up on harder Mario levels. Celeste made hard, 2D platforming accessible.
Sometimes a simple "pattern interrupt" can break the cycle. If you've a habit of opening the page whenever you hop on your phone, that extra effort may be enough to push back against the potential incentive
Anecdotally, a lot of digital addictions come down to ease of access vs dopamine hit. As soon as your access method is "futz with a hosts file" or "ask your wife to unlock the blocker" (I was pretty bad), it becomes easier to break the cycle.
More people need to utilise their tendency toward lazyness, I swear
I don't think it's corruption so much as the public sector getting harvested for parts via privatisation and outsourcing to contractors.
The usual cycle goes like this:
- "We need to decrease costs in public organisation A because $reason"
- "Hey look, public org has growing wait times and growing infrastructure issues. We should reduce their budget because they're not doing their job!"
Rinse & repeat until you're left with Centrelink's current state. They don't have enough money to make the changes needed to clean up legacy systems AND process the work loads they have now AND maintain the current systems, so a choice is made by people in a sinking ship. Around 2014 the amount spent on "admin" was gutted by half with the election of the Liberal party (small govt party in AU), with funding only recovering to the previous levels during 2017.
edit: formatting (bullet point lists and newlines are hard)
I don't believe this was the problem in this case. As mentioned, they were blowing $billions on individual IT projects, and hiring vendor specialist consultants at $4-$5K per day in many cases. Similarly, their kit was over-specced to a ludicrous degree.
I asked their DBA team to deploy a ~100 MB "system configuration" database and they gave me four dedicated(!) physical quad-socket servers in a 2+2 HA configuration. The active server showed 1% load, the three replica servers rounded the load down to 0% in Task Manager.
All that for that one tiny database!
Their excuse was that this was their "standard pattern", and that everyone gets the same spec, irrespective of need.
In any private org, you would be walked out the door if you spent nearly half a million dollars on kit+licensing for something like that because you were too lazy to have more than one option for database hosting.
PS: There was a huge database team. You can't tell me it was a staff capacity issue either. This particular product had it's own sub-team dedicated to it.
I'm wondering if the consulting company I used to work for is behind this. Hardware sales were behind many decisions, because that's where the sales team made commissions.
> Around 2014 the amount spent on "admin" was gutted by half with the election of the Liberal party (small govt party in AU)
Inaccurate if not misleading. The Liberal party are firm believers that private companies do everything better than Government. Pretty much the UK conservative party in function and form
Yeah, the pattern has been a massive increase in spend in consultancies (especially the big 4) for things that the public service used to do itself. I believe it's over a billion dollars per year to the big 4 now, from tens of millions p/a back then.
The scope of what's considered a "table top RPG" these days is pretty large. A large number of them are more focussed on the creativity and drama aspects, rather than the tactical combat. I'm not surprised that a lot of them are able to be solo'd versus played collaboratively.
Hell, there are games like Microscope that would be incredibly fun playing solo.
Right, choose your own and MUDs and such are environments created for you with pre-determined options. I play those, sure, but the pull of tabletop games for me is the creative aspect. Creating a character (in the senses of 'fictional character' as much as a stats sheet) as a player, or a world and (npc) characters to inhabit it, as a GM. These more freeform approaches to solo play open up a lot of scope for individual creative exploration, and some GMs use them to help develop a setting they later go on to use in a group game.
A little confused by what you mean. TTRPGs were not originally about tactical combat (old RPGs were very lethal so combat was a fail state), and wouldn't tactical combat (rather than the RP) make the game more soloable (lots of video games are just the combat part of an RPG)?
Quite the contrary. D&D was originally a supplement for Chainmail, a skirmish wargame, in which they started adding characterization elements. Many/most of the early RPGs were very crunchy, and a lot of people played them focused on combat and stats. But it had started by adding story elements to a wargame, and over the years it continued adding more.
In the middle era, the trend was obvious with games like Vampire: The Masquerade and its Storyteller system, coupled with the LARPing fad and some diceless games.
Since that era, the trend has continued. Many games now have little or no crunch at all, and focus almost entirely on world-building, storytelling, and improv. Some games, like the mentioned Microscope, along with Ex Novo and The Quiet Year are almost entirely crunchless world-building and storytelling.
You can go quite far with just oracles and no system at all, and then if you need one, easily pull in something modern and light like FATE, Mythic, or Fu RPG that just adds a few die rolls to your otherwise creative campaign.
And it can be more soloable than crunchy games because you don't need tons of rules and stats and dice rolls. You instead have creative prompts and oracles and source material and can just go with it, reading, interpreting, writing wherever your imagination takes you.
I did also do a lot of solo wargaming, so crunch is not un-soloable, but less crunch is easier and can feel more rewarding.
Yeah nah, old mate over here putting in the hard yakka and ignoring the place of code-switching. There's a middle ground between "souless corpo speak" and speaking colloquially. You need to give everyone a fair shake of the stick and assuming everyone comes from the big smoke doesn't.
Words are a tool used to convey meaning mate. Cracking the shits because you've gotta make concessions means you're not seeing a hammer as a hammer
Look, if I wasn't a big fan of Paul Hogan and had to look up what you meant, I'd still put in the time to wiki all of it. And sometimes that's the whole point of using words in a certain way (as you did): to get people to reflect on the subtler shades of meaning. And that should be perfectly fine, because you're choosing the audience you want to address and how you want to address them. I don't understand half of Ulysses without reading the footnotes, but I don't expect I was supposed to. If you want people to ponder what you're saying or hear it in a certain poetic way, that's absolutely your prerogative, whether you're writing documents for an app or addressing Parliament. It's not as if Google is suggesting that dropping colloquialisms is a clearer way of communicating to more people for the sake of efficiency. They're essentially demanding uniform corpo-speak and trying to stop you from even using your own words in your own private docs. It's tyranny.
If the entire point of using words in a certain way is to get people to reflect on subtle shades of meaning, admire your poetry or reach for a thesaurus, you're entitled to ignore the suggestions. Probably you'll want to ignore grammar suggestions which have been in word processors for decades without hundred comment whingefests and spurious Orwell comparisons too. Maybe even spellcheck if using yer own werrds in yer own pryvate documents is really iMpoRtAnT to yoo[1]. Most people aren't using Google docs to write Ulysses or Riddley Walker though, they're using it to draft documentation and letters to a customer base.
(And elsewhere it's being asserted with equal fury that master/slave replication and assumptions that people are exclusively male shouldn't be flagged because the choice of words doesn't have any deeper meaning...)
Honestly, can you not see how staggeringly self-centred it is to insist that if readers have to Google your idioms that's the beauty of language (even for documents where clarity is more important than linguistic flourishes) but removable squiggly line suggestions are far too much of an imposition on native speakers (who are of course both incapable of making a word choice in error and too vulnerable not to unthinkingly accept Google's suggested alternative in their private documents).
Honestly, the word privilege is overused, but I can't think of anything more apt to describe a cohort of people so far removed from any real threat that the most tyrannical thing they can think of is a clunky grammar check feature.
[1]Ironically, my phone actually insisted on overwriting my pryvate werrds with alternative spellings. Tyranny, I tell you.
>> can you not see how staggeringly self-centred it is to insist that if readers have to Google your idioms that's the beauty of language
You know what's self-centered? Telling the whole world that they're writing the right or wrong way. Believing everyone reads the way you do. Believing you know what words they should use and what their aims are in addressing a reader.
>> Honestly, the word privilege is overused, but I can't think of anything more apt to describe a cohort of people so far removed from any real threat that the most tyrannical thing they can think of is a clunky grammar check feature.
The grammar check feature is the thin end of a wedge. Who's more privileged than someone worried one of the world's largest companies is setting policies that restrict or nudge private language in billions of documents? I guess "more privileged" would be the people who have no understanding of the history of political suppression of language and think that using the word "landlord" is a form of "harm" or "violence" which entitles a company to involve itself in the content of people's letters (and here, any comparison to spell checking is totally disingenuous). Anyone who believes language is "violence" and supports policing it is either a totalitarian or so privileged themselves as to have never seen violence.
It's not a question of being able to turn the feature off: It's the sheer monomaniacal hubris of people who think they have a right to be the voice in someone's ear or on someone's text document, trying to dissuade them from using words you arbitrarily don't like in a bid to control their behavior. That is exactly the nature of tyranny and totalitarianism. Only people with such extreme privilege as to have grown up far away from those things can pretend it's simply promoting "inclusivity".
BTW bro, have you looked at that photo of yourself at Machu Pichu on your website? You're the poster child for privileged people misusing "privilege".
>> whingefests
This also betrays your kind. "Quit whining" is a favorite line of most bullies. You're the kind of bully who gets their hands on a leftist idea instead of a fascist/racist idea, but show precisely the same lack of thought. They do try to make these virtue signaling behaviors and speech patterns easier for frat boys these days - makes you guys easier to switch off whenever they feel like turning accusations of "privilege" against you.
Nope, I'm going to stick with the view that it's self-centred to not only think even inadvertently confusing idioms are invariably more important than clarity, but also to insist that even if some people want pointers on avoiding gendered terms or words which have obscure controversies associated with them, corporations must restrict their grammar checking features to stuff which doesn't trigger you.
And no, it absolutely isn't disingenuous to suggest that a feature which suggests some words might inadvertently assume the reader is male or has negative connotations isn't somehow qualitatively different to one that tells you your Flesch Kincaid score could be higher, advises you to avoid the passive voice or starting sentences with "but", and even spellchecks have a subjective component (as I'm reminded whenever I decline a tool's suggestion to substitute Noah Webster's spellings for the ones I was taught). All style guide stuff involves judgements by humans based on what they think is better for other humans to read and none involves any behaviour control (at least not unless the style guide checker is your boss).
You can't have it both ways, if word choices are incapable of alienating people it makes bugger all difference to have a software feature with some words suggesting using some different words. If the beaty of words matters deeply to you, maybe their etymology or gender implications matter to some people who are not you too. Personally I'd say people thinking that landlord is a pretty worrisome term are a bit over the top, but they're not half as over the top as people insisting there's something akin to the suppression of political speech about suggesting "proprietor" as an alternative and anyone who doesn't agree with them is a bully.
BTW bro, thanks for checking out my website. Not sure why you think that old pic gives you great insight into my background, but let's just say I haven't lead such a sheltered existence I feel bullied by a user configurable linting tool and people not agreeing with my opinion on linting tools.
My original comment was about Google's style guide for developers, which is not an optional set of suggestions. But as far as the linting tool, it is not something people are installing themselves who want to correct their grammar. It's a default-on layer over private writing in one of the most widely used pieces of writing software in the world. Its purpose is not to correct grammar or even to suggest stylistic improvements, but rather to nag people to make politically charged and slanted word choices, explicitly telling them that words like "mother" are politically incorrect.
A decade of social media has shown that small changes to UIs, news feeds, opt-out features and suggestion algorithms have radically changed human behavior. This is a dark pattern attempt to change human behavior. A neutral tool for typing documents has no business making this an opt-out feature. The aim of it is not to improve people's writing but to literally make people think twice about using certain words because someone, somewhere might be offended by them. The trouble is that when this becomes foremost in one's mind while writing, it absolutely warps the ability to speak honestly. It politicizes everything.
And these are not suggestions made by humans. They are being made by an opaque AI. If that AI decides that a word is politically incorrect, a nudge like this can effectively dampen the usage of that word in practice, without any sort of wider debate.
Consider how this will play out when China and Russia require Docs and other word processors to include "nudges" like this, for example about the Ukraine war, or Tibet. Of course, you can still type what you want to, but the chilling effect of seeing a warning pop up about a word you've just written is enough in many places to make you delete it. Just because it's being done first in the name of inclusivity or social justice and 'who could argue with that?' doesn't make it OK. It's a blatant attempt to control human behavior.
There's no "honesty" in calling a database a "slave" or assuming your user base is male. If Googlers compiling are wrong that calling a database a "slave" actually normalises slavery then nobody is actually hurt and no meaning lost by the trivial move to rename it something else, and if they're right... well you're free to make a case that the normalisation of slavery is an inherently wonderful thing under threat, I guess, but is a niche position (and people edit in response to the prompt precisely because most developers using the term have absolutely no intention of normalising slavery)
Consider how this already played out when the words in question were profanity. People cracked jokes about the clunkiness of a feature that censored the town of Scunthorpe but nobody old enough to get into cinemas came up with absurd comparisons to the Great Firewall of China or talked about it as mind control or bullying. No slippery slope was fallen down, and despite swear filters being pervasive in style guides and on user generated content tools, self-proclaimed free speech advocates ignored them to the extent they're actually insisting the social justice people did content filters first. I guess it's easier to be indifferent when you don't despise the cause behind it...
I'm not a proponent of slavery, nor was I one 20 years ago the first time I set up a slave server. You don't think it's the least bit wrong to artificially call people names just because you decided to change the language in a completely ridiculous way and they didn't want to play-act along with you that you were doing a great thing for the world?
The "honesty" is inherent in calling a thing what it is. Red and green still exist, whether or not there are blind people who can't see them. Asking people to avoid the word "red", as in "redlining", is asking people to agree that 2+2=5. Some will do so out of fear. Some will do so because they're browbeaten with retarded arguments like the ones you're giving.
2+2=4. The people who thought the Great Firewall was a good idea for Chinese nationalism are just like you. They believed in doing the best thing for the most people, at the expense of anyone who disagreed with them. And like you, their real reason was not in fact to help anyone; it was showing that they had power to push their agenda.
>> I guess it's easier to be indifferent when you don't despise the cause behind it...
This is the real nut of it. If you find yourself indifferent to something because you're in favor if the cause behind it, but you would be outraged if you were against the cause behind it, then you had better speak out against it - because it will come for you eventually.
It always comes back and bites you. I'm a grandchild of holocaust survivors. No one spoke up for us. You are creating the conditions by which everyone is afraid to speak their mind.
I hope your own people do come for you first, and I'm confident they will find something in your Facebook or Twitter history to kick you out of society as language changes in the next few years and you find yourself left behind. My advice to you then is: Remember that you didn't speak up for anyone else you disagreed with.
This'll be the end of this; I'm done wasting my time on someone who can't understand the basic principles at work here. I hope the best for you and people like you when the fascists take over and tell you which words aren't inclusive of their idea of equity.
Some people have hobby projects they really don't want anything other than donations for. Sometimes they don't even want donations.
Money brings responsibility, and responsibility kills the fun. Donations will begin to feel like you owe the donators your time, even though you do not. But it's hard to break out of that mindset. Especially once you start getting negative remarks for not implementing enough features, despite the donations.
This feels like a non sequitur. Their project being open source or not doesn't protect their mental health spiralling. This could have happened to a paid lib, and you'd be out of luck due to vendor lock rather than just picking a fork.
Honestly sounds like the pot calling the kettle black here. You're asking hundreds of people to put their health at risk so that ~2c of every tax dollar you pay isn't wasted. Assuming $100k in tax, you're only paying them $2k, or ~$40 a week. If you really value your daily coffee that much, just buy a coffee machine.
> Assuming $100k in tax, you're only paying them $2k
Where are you getting your numbers?
In California, public education is guaranteed >50% of state spending. That's on top of federal and local spending. (Schools in "rich" areas don't get state funding, so they must locally fund. Some of that locally-raised money is taken by the state.)
Grocery store people work and have contact with far more people....
I suspect I had mixed up federal and total tax revenue %. We're still only talking an avg of $4k per working person for the entire system though, if you take the total funding sans property tax and divvy it up by the working population (90bn, ~30% prop tax, 16.9mil working pop).
I realise the avg isn't going to be representative of the general population, but the marginal utility of money should roughly scale with the amount of that paid per-person.
> Grocery store people work and have contact with far more people.
Honestly not entirely sure of your source on this. I'd suspect that having several hundred students in the same building for an entire day with central AC would be more of a petrie dish than your typical grocery store most of the week.
Since property tax is a huge source of school funding, "sans property tax" is like saying that we're going to ignore taxes paid by folks who live in detached houses.
> > Grocery store people work and have contact with far more people.
> Honestly not entirely sure of your source on this.
Several hundred is a fairly large school, such schools don't have a single HVAC system, AND Covid doesn't work that way.
Moreover, you significantly underestimate store traffic. (Far more people go to grocery stores than go to schools.)
Costcos have 750 parking spaces and they turn-over 10-12x times a day. Even with only one person per car, that's 750 different people/day, >5k/week, or >15k/month. (Schools are the same people every day.) Walmarts are comparable.
Yes, Costco is 2-3x bigger than the typical grocery store but there's still no comparison. Grocery store workers have far more exposure than teachers.
Completely made-up tax numbers aside, such strong opinions about the disposable income of strangers and what they should do with it! Sorry, I'm passing on this offer. Don't call back. Thanks.
Please be kind. The topic is worth debate but your comments are crossing a line and come across rather hostile. I’m not a mod, but as a friendly reminder regarding site rules:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
I have no respect for selective scolding based on subjective definitions of kindness.
And I have no hostility towards anyone in this conversation. But I'm not above a sharp retort when I'm being condescendingly lectured to based on flawed premises.
The premise of your argument seems to be that the public school system is flawed, and that you shouldn't have to pay into it, especially if the teachers aren't working.
This implies a lack of care for social responsibility and a lack of respect for the people that are actually having to take the risk.
While I appreciate the point of view that it isn't quite fair, I'd point out that a) teachers should have a right to health and safety in the workplace, b) social mobility would be obliterated if you could opt out of funding public schools, and c) you're likely arguing this from an office where you're at much lower risk.
It's not a great position to be in, sure. But arguing that we're not being kind in our position when yours seems to be "but they're wasting my money" seems to be borderline misanthropic.
I think blindly trusting powerful teacher's unions to define "safe working conditions" when they get paid either way is textbook social irresponsibility. It's "ruinous empathy", the sort of thing that makes you feel kind and good while actually doing harm. It hurts kids, especially the most vulnerable and disadvantaged inner-city students where these unions are most dominant.
COVID is no more dangerous than the flu for vaccinated people, and has been for many months now. But some teacher's unions are still demanding closures, as documented in the article.
I phrased it in terms of my own checkbook because IMO that makes the principle involved most transparent (moral hazard against payors), but personally my schools are fine. The biggest impacts of no choice are on the most disadvantaged.
The fact that you took "teachers should have a right to health and safety in the workplace" as "WFH only or not" is either naive or disingenuous. This isn't a binary, and I'm surprised that someone would assume as such.
What about literally everyone else? You are only making a case for teachers, who else should we be paying to stay home?
Democrats do with teachers what republicans do with cops. This strange do no wrong hero worship. I don't get it. Looking at our stats globally (reading and math scores/police brutality rates) neither deserve praise.
