If all it took to ensure a good outcome was to create good circumstances, we'd have fixed society in the prehistoic era. People would have figured it out and asked the good parents to raise all the kids one generation, and problem solved.
Instead what you see is parents with five successful kids, and one that keeps ending up in prison, and no one can really explain how it went wrong.
Equal parents doesn't need to mean equal circumstances. Times and culture change, parents age, family circumstances change over time, their environment outside the home is different, different friends, different experiences, etc. There's a myriad of factors that can lead to very different circumstances for siblings.
If you talk to people working with foster kids about why some kids succeed despite everything stacked against them, they'll tell you some kids are different.
It's possible you're correct and there's some circumstance controlling things we can't see or don't understand, but that's not a testable idea.
One can't even say that good circumstances are always better than bad circumstances. Bad circumstances can teach a lot about humility, perseverance, empathy, compassion, etc. Good circumstances can lead to grown, spoiled children, people with a child's concept of how the world works, people with no consideration towards others because they didn't need to be part of a community, etc.
Environment plays a huge role, but it's somewhat unpredictable what lessons are taken. One could also say that it's not unanimously clear what makes a good environment; it's likely not simply about having resources and lacking conflict. Likely an amount of scarcity and conflict are needed.
All this isn't to say that kids are all born the same, but I don't consider such differences to generally matter as much as the effect the environment can have.
I'd have just sat there for hours trying to trick ChatGPT into giving bomb making advice, and then disrupted the others by sharing.
There have been many variations on this idea of "letting kids learn on their own". The basic issue is the one you highlight, which is that it works if the student is very self motivated. Most students aren't. Or rather, they're highly motivated to do other things.
Most children are naturally curios. The challenge is to make them curios about the things you want them to learn, and make that more interesting than finding out how to make bombs or what the consequences of sharing that with the class will be
I think if you can get into the chemistry just a bit, then the math behind the chemistry, it can be a vehicle. I mean it's the same with programming. Why write code (boring, yuck) when you could play video games? Then the kids see code makes video games. Suddenly you have all these programs with kids making Minecraft mods or whatever. But finding each child's "bomb" would be hard for a teacher to do, especially with a common curriculum
Alpha doesn't use a chatbot, it's still a multiple choice / text input into a box type of thing, I don't even think it's AI graded, though the questions may be AI generated, I'm not sure about that.
In the early days they were using off the shelf curriculum software and layering their own steering AI over it.
I'm always dubious of news reporting on supposed trends for young people. The press regularly makes them up. There's no evidence provided in this article that this is some sort of popular phrase.
> The results have been striking. New hires on GTM are Kai-native: they use it 2.7x more, and power users close 80% more value than low users within the same cohort. When Account Executives use Kai, they produce 2x the sales activity, create 17% more opportunities, generate 26% more revenue opportunities, and close 39% more deals when compared to the same sellers in weeks they don't use it. In aggregate, Kai has helped shift 25,000 hours per year from administrative work, to revenue generating work.
These numbers feel suspicious. How can the increase closed deals be so much larger than the increase in opportunities? Why is twice the sales activity only generating 17% more opportunities?
Then you'd still only have a small number of roles up, not the thousands of positions the article is showing for some companies. They'd be hiring hundreds of thousands a year if they were constantly interviewing for all of them, and I don't believe O'Reilly Auto Parts is recruiting people as quickly as a nation at war.
When I lived in the area about 6 years ago, I had 3rd party recruiters reach out to me about roles that they don't list. The whole region it felt like was 70% contractors (W-2 with the contracting firm), until the company really liked you and bought out your contract and converted you to an actual employee.
Surprisingly I had better benefits at the two contracting firms than what employees were getting.
I read the article and it sounds kinda-sorta good at face value but the more I read and look into readplace.com the less things make sense and the more "ick" grows. Oh well just a puff piece... It's a big pet peeve of mine when someone uses a "CEO" title where it's probably very likely there's no Board or any other officers (or is a side project).
Author comes off as diligent, intelligent and dedicated... but might gain some credibility by having real humans read and proof the copy.
> As the 5 p.m. cutoff to pass bills approached Tuesday, Sen. Shelly Short, R-Addy, launched an unusual bid to bog down the Senate process. She demanded Lt. Gov. Denny Heck, a Democrat, to have the chamber’s secretary read all 39 pages of a bill focused on electrical transmission infrastructure. Usually, the clerk reads the first and last line of legislation into the record. Heck agreed.
> This maneuver killed the transmission bill, as well as several others Senate Democrats were hoping to vote on before the deadline. One of those looked to address surging theft of copper wiring. Senate Bill 6190 would’ve imposed new recordkeeping requirements on scrap metal businesses and made destroying “critical communications infrastructure” a felony.
Additional context: That state senator represents Washington's 7th legislative district, which is one of the most rural areas in the north-east corner of the state. [0]
You're absolutely wrong if you think those people are managing to get an answer first try now. People's searches remain frequently incoherent. There's a reason Google's AI results frequently end with some text asking for clarification, or guessing what you actually want to do.
People will eagerly tell you that some types of investments are guaranteed to show returns over a long enough period, but over a long enough period we'll all be dead.
Instead what you see is parents with five successful kids, and one that keeps ending up in prison, and no one can really explain how it went wrong.
reply