Did you notice where the summary said "Most of that growth — 73% — happened in red [Republican-leaning] states. Eight of the top 10 states for new installations fall into that category, including Texas, Indiana, Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, and Arkansas..."

Turns out that "We think solar is stupid but there's land here if you morons want to build it" is much less of an impediment to clean energy than "Oh we loooooove solar let's start the 10-year environment impact review process right away so we can get you your conditional permit."

Alarming that this is quote is allegedly from the person listed as the lead author on the study.

The study didn't perform any measurements that could establish a rate of change of DNA. It didn't even look at DNA or any heritable differences between the bears, it only looks at RNA expression of markers it said were correlated.

More specifically it only looked at RNA expression *in the blood* for *17 bears* and used the average temperature of the nearest town to the bear population. So temperature was just a proxy for population with lots of confounders. The study did nothing either to show that those were *advantageous* changes for bears in heat-stressed areas.

About the only actual take away from the study is "there were differences in blood transcriptomes of bears at different latitudes." Any further meaning is an unevidenced hypothetical.

Which could certainly be a starting point for further research. But that's about the extent of it.

This is VERY different between institutions and levels of institution and majors. I went to a top 20 national university. I had one adjunct professor in 4 years (an English PhD student who taught a small 10-person freshman seminar).

I never had a teacher who was hard to understand. My Calc 3 teacher was German, but that was it. Every single computer science professor I had was native American or 100% fluent and clear in English.

My freshman 101 comp sci class had maybe 60 people, and that was the largest class I ever took. Multiple undergrad professors held parties at their homes at the end of the semester for their students. 20+ years later I am still in regular contact with 3 or 4 professors.

My experience in graduate school was identical. My wife went to a small private liberals arts school and her experience was perhaps even more extreme than mine. She never even had a 60 person class!

This all came with a price tag that has gotten worse since then, of course..

My sister, on the other hand, went to a non-flagship public and her experience was wildly different. I'm not sure she really ever had personal interaction with a professor. It was very much what you said--learn from the textbooks, pass the exam, that's it.

Is this about Trump, Rubio, Bush, Paul, Cotton, Cruz, and Vance all saying that people should stop going to college?

Even the summary says

How you got from "cross-demographic survey results" to "conspiracy of all republicans" seems a bit of a leap. If the Republicans *actually have* found a way to exert that much influence on the views of every demographic group, the Democrats might as well just pack their bags and go home, they're done forever.

I think in reality this is just a survey detecting people noticing exploding tuition costs and feeling bleak about the future job market, especially being displaced by technology.

And we'll need to start worrying about that in 400,000,000,000,000 years.

Not really. Every ruling power in Iran over the past century has made the exact same bad decisions in this respect. The previous monarchy, the more recent monarchy, socialists, capitalists, foreign interests, Islamic revolutionaries, they've all been drawing too much water from the aquifers too fast for terrible reasons.

Slashdot itself has had a bevy of articles over the years (such as
this) about the harms of social media to developing adolescents.

Is Slashdot part of the propaganda campaign to wipe out digital anonymity?

The data on harms is at least a big chunk of the motivation. Maybe the response to it is a moral panic or maybe the response is proportionate to the evidence. But I think it's going to win out in terms of policy.

If you don't like the proposed solution, I think you better start promoting a better way to implement this kind of intervention that still preserves the protections you care about.

Or people are going to go with the not-better way.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2F9to5mac.com%2F2025%2F11%2F14%2Fnew-iphone-pocket-now-available-to-order-but-its-selling-out-fast%2F

"Many of the iPhone Pocket color and size combinations are already sold out, though."

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apple.com%2Fshop%2Fproduct%2Fhs8j2zm%2Fa%2Fiphone-pocket-by-issey-miyake-short-black

Since the article was posted, all variations are sold out online.

Not as bad a call as the original Slashdot take on the iPod, but just goes to show that Slashdotters are not an important demographic.

Oh, I don't disagree with that at all. My state is a bit of an outlier, in that our teachers ARE more lowly paid than national averages, but then my locality is one of the higher paying supplements to teacher pay.

Why do I say pay is a problem? I've seen what happens to many good teachers. They get burned out from having to deal with trouble maker kids who if they get disciplined or get bad grades the parents go ape shit with allegations of racism, sexism, abuse, whatever. They get burned out from dealing with helicopter parents. They get burned out from, in most parts of the country, being governed by elected shitty school boards. They get burned out because some miscreant has an IEP and a 504 plan and so his stealing from classmates and being constantly disrupted is considered a manifestation of his disability and everyone else just has to deal with it.

Good teachers have job flexibility. I've seen multiple _great_ teachers go to work for companies like IXL where their starting salaries are always higher than what they were making as seasoned teachers. Others go the administrator route and become principals, superintendents, etc. Others go to teach at private schools where the pay is often better.

What I would propose is basically 3 things:

1. Get rid of habitually low performing teachers--every year get rid of your worst teachers
2. Increase pay for high performing teachers
3. And the kicker that I have no idea how to do--allow schools and teachers to apply standards and discipline without fear of lawsuits.

I think that plays into it too. In many--most--school districts, teachers effectively have tenure--it takes serious malfeasance or illegality to get fired.

Years of bad performance isn't enough.

I think part of the solution has to be dramatically increasing teacher pay but you also have to make the working environment better.

There is basically no, or very little, support for this position, and even stating it publicly would get you called a racist.

I just don't see a solution.

Pretty much all of the US ethnic groups do better than those from the "origin" countries do. US Asians outperform East Asian Asians. US Euros outperform Europeans. US Africans outperform African Africans (though there is a less data for the continent).

You chose to post this anonymously. I don't blame you. Even discussing the possibility of this is a hard thing to discuss. I don't see a societal solution.

I attended a (public) middle school teacher meeting about two years ago. The 8th grade math teacher said "I am supposed to be teaching XYZ for the 8th grade statewide standardized math test. I can't do it. Around 1/3 of my students can't multiply two numbers. They don't know." (She went on in this vein--it wasn't laughing or flippant, it was a cry for help)

She didn't say 1/3 of her students struggled with some of their multiplication tables, or algebraic concepts, it was that they literally didn't know how multiplication works.

I used to quiz my kids every morning with short "head math" problems starting in K and 1st grade. I started simple "2+2" .. "5+5" ... "6+7". Eventually I added multiple steps "1 + 4 + 3 - 2" or "6 + 7 - 2 + 10". I did the same starting in maybe 3rd / 4th grade with multiplication tables.

One of my kids ended up being an academic high flyer. The other still, to this day, struggles with math. He somehow worked his way into an advanced math class, but he has to work his ass of in there for Bs and Cs.

I am very sympathetic to people who aren't mathematically inclined, but these problems are embarassingly easy.

So I have a serious question for you (this comes on the heels of me doing a deep dive on PISA testing results, and it honestly has been weighing heavily on my mind lately).

I 100% believe that socioeconomic factors are probably the single biggest factor in academic success.

Is there any possibility that average population-wide genetics play a role in academic success? (I very much do NOT want to use the word "race" because I think it's basically meaningless). Is it possible that, on average, Americans with a large Far East Asian genetic component perform academically better than, on average, American students with primarily Western European backgrounds? What about those with large sub-Saharan African genetic components? Etc.

The question really is--is it _possible_?

My answer is that yes, I think it's possible. I don't think academic achievement is the most important thing out there, but it's important.

And, if it's possible? What the heck do we, in a free and democratic society do about it?

It's bleak and dystopian to think about!