Dude chill. It's an air-conditioned room with desks and a coffee machine, not a cotton field.
Some people like having an office.
I could call someone like you a hyper dramatic agoraphobic socially inept recluse over a simple posted opinion but that wouldn't be kind,fair, or mature
> It's an air-conditioned room with desks and a coffee machine, not a cotton field.
It's a huge open space filled with stale, stinky, dry office air, obnoxious people and dirt. Conditions are not cotton field or not cotton field, only serfs think like that.
> I could call someone like you a hyper dramatic agoraphobic socially inept recluse over a simple posted opinion but that wouldn't be kind,fair, or mature
Projecting much? My home setup costs costs more than half of that "office" combined, and that's just my room.
Do you seriously think I want to kill my back, my eyes and my attention for 40 hours a week when I can comfortably work at home and be much more productive instead of playing clown because some bubs can't tolerate working without distracting another person for 5 minutes?
Covid was literally 10x more dangerous than the vaccine for those without comorbidities, but it's played out now. The vaccine is about as effective as a flu jab.
This seems like a bad way to phrase it. The vaccine is certainly a lot (many orders of magnitude) less dangerous than just 0.1x as dangerous as COVID. Maybe you wanted to say that the risks from COVID are only 10x more without vaccination than with it due to limited effectiveness of the vaccine?
I've discounted the other effects as they were generally associated with comorbidities (lung scaring was a % of hospitalized people).
I've also discounted long-covid because of comorbidities, self-reporting bias, nocebo effective, and depression/anxiety overlap. Yes I know its still real, but the true rates are difficult to know.
Myocarditis from the is usually mild while myocarditis from COVID may have worse outcomes. And for myocarditis, the 10x would apply only for a specific age group and males, and not overall.
friend of mine (early 20s) got his atp production severely damaged (not annihilated but way less than normal).
he can't really use stairs, or walk a long time, etc. he sleeps a lot, and basically can't be active for a long time anymore. his reaction time also worsened apparently (used to be ridiculously fast).
hospital folks (in 2 different countries) directly linked it to the vaccine.
Does anyone have actual numbers on what France’s nuclear fleet cost? I thought it was somewhat shrouded in mystery due to government and national security subsidies.
and the montessori method is effective in lowering disruptive peer-behaviour. it's part of the point. it teaches children to not be disruptive by letting them focus on their activities.
These type of studies trot the line of cargo cult though. Incredibly small effects, weak causation, full of possible confounders.
I'm not going to say being in a class where you are trying to pay attention and others are being very disruptive, and interrupt the lesson is enjoyable, it's annoying, but if you take even the studies you link, say the second link, it finds a 2% correlated effect, that is peers had scores 0.02 times lower than the standard deviation.
So if we were to change and group kids based on disruptiveness, instead of a 80% test core, your kid would have a 79.7% test score...
Now before you respond to this, I want to reiterate the point of my argument, that none of these ideas focus on actual teaching method improvements. How do you take a child at any level, and more effectively teach them so they learn faster and improve their intelligence and knowledge.
These alternatives, grouped by disruptiveness, grouped by current abilities, etc. they don't really change the pedagogy, just the environment. It seems their known effects are really small, and the effect on the average are not known.
So I'm not against them, as just from a pure setup they seem more appropriate, but it seems unlilely to result in much improvement learning wise, the kind that I'd be interested in.
How do you efficiently allocate resources? Especially when you have a wide spectrum of preferences.
I think if you spent long enough thinking about that problem you'd just end up inventing money. You'd have to call it something else so it sounded rebelliously anti-capitalist though
reply