Tesla uses independent body shops they certify, I know this because I've used one as a result of a deer accident. The service centers do not handle beyond some level of damage.
Well that's obviously not true, I know people who have had their body damage fixed elsewhere. In fact, I doubt Tesla service centers do _any_ of their own bodywork, so it's entirely possible your comment is the exact opposite of true.
Agricultural products, heavy equipment hauls, bulk materials, etc. regularly hit 80k pounds and above. Truckers picking routes to bypass scales is a meme for a reason.
"Solve the problem yourself". Yeah, you've never had to deal with being chased by bullies and having the shit kicked out of you for no reason. Bullying is not a conflict between peers anymore than a woman getting raped is a conflict between peers.
As an adult these problems are solved for you by either human resources, the police, or being able to avoid the situation. Maybe that's why you don't walk around the rough part of town alone at night. As a kid you have no control over your environment.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I was bullied as a child, and honestly, the problem is hard to deal with. I was not good at socialising, I found it difficult to read social cues, and I was kind of irritating a lot of the time. None of that excuses bullying, of course, but ultimately a large part of what caused that bullying was my own behaviour. If I'd have been more socially adept, if I'd realised that the social group I'd found wasn't supporting me and if I'd put more effort into making worthwhile friends, I wouldn't have been in that situation.
In the end, I needed to change for the issue to be resolved - which I did, and, along with moving to a new environment which helped reset a lot of my social interactions, that helped a lot. Obviously that's not some instant magic wand solution - I went through five long years of this experience, with various teachers and other adults trying to help me before things started clicking and I started being able to move on - but in my experience there aren't really many better solutions.
So, while I can't reiterate enough how unacceptable bullying is, and what a negative impact it had on those years of my life, I do agree with the previous poster: the ultimate solution to being bullied often lies in the hands of victim (n.b. not literally: I never found violence helped me), and trying to resolve the situation via visible external intervention may well have little impact. For me at least, a better social education would have made me much more prepared to deal with the issues that I faced.
But isn't one really useful way to learn by having people older and wiser than you step in and explain the situation to everyone involved? You don't just throw a bunch of math symbols at a child and say, "learn how to do arithmetic." You teach them what numbers and numerals are and how to manipulate them. You teach them easier concepts first, and then build on them. That needs to be done for both bullies and their victims, too. Most people will not "just figure it out." That's abusive in itself.
That's definitely true, but I think you've got to know what you're teaching. You can't just teach that bullying is bad, because - while it definitely is - that's not solving the underlying problem. Instead, I think you've got to take an active role in teaching healthy social interactions, especially to those kids who are struggling to figure things out. We need to embrace emotional intelligence as a taught intelligence, where I think all too often we just ignore it with excuses like "that's just who they are".
And that's not going to work for everyone, so obviously there still needs to be repercussions for people who do bully others, and we should make it clear that bullying is never acceptable, but I think we need to concentrate more on helping the people being bullied to grow, rather than stopping the bullies themselves. To come back to your maths analogy, if someone's struggling with arithmetic, you can't just make the subject easier and tell them they don't need to worry about it, they still need to actually learn the subject, even if it's hard for them.
"The ultimate solution to being bullied often lies in the hands of the victim" is the reality that people who are pushing for anti-bullying measures are trying to change.
Well, bullying is many things, and I think the exact issue is that the conversation lacks nuance. As I mentioned in my first post, conflict which is evenly matched should not be regarded the same way as conflict which is not. If you are attacked by a group of people, or someone substantially larger than you, then intervention is warranted. Ideally this intervention is carried out by older peers. If you're being bullied by one of your peers, you need to learn the skills to resolve that conflict. Sometimes escalation is the best tool, sometimes avoidance is. There's no panacea, but it's something we all need to learn.
If one of your classmates takes to pushing you around, taking your stuff, embarrassing you, calling you names, etc. This is normal behaviour in apes who are trying to establish a dominance hierarchy. The bully likely sees you as a soft target who is easy to dominate. The best course is to correct that assumption - escalate conflict - fight back, fight dirty. It's the same rationale as in prison - you don't want to end up at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy. The best way to avoid that is to make friends and be more trouble than you are worth.
In adulthood I’ve never had to resolve a problematic interaction through physical violence, and I hope to never have to. The methods I have used—distancing myself from the bully, reporting to management/HR/oversight agencies—are quite like the methods I used to avoid bullying in childhood. I never used violence back then either.
The only meaningful difference between now and then is that in adulthood I have more such avenues and they are much more effective. The fact that they were less effective in childhood is an indictment of the administrative and social structure we have constructed schools to have, not of nonviolent methods themselves. I reject your assertion that it’s helpful for a bullied child to model behavior on chimpanzees in the jungle or criminals in prison. Becoming violent in childhood would have had negative long‐term effects on me, and I’m glad nobody back then gave me the “advice” you’re sharing now.
Good response. Toxic organisations (at whatever scale) fail to maintain an atmosphere where bullying is rejected and people are helped to be their best. Children should be taught to recognise toxic organisations and be given courage to exit them. And internalize that you do this as an adult too. There are situations where assault or battery could arise, and it is good to have some training in how to deal with those situations. Bullying, assault, battery are all abusive: it’s just bullying is legal and the others are not.
Given that my interactions with adults outside of school (and later, when I was pulled out of public school to be homeschooled) were almost always positive, I’m willing to specifically blame school administration and/or their techniques.
I think you problably have some sampling bias in your adult interactions.
Im guessing most of them don't involve the lowest functioning portion of the population, eg, people who regularly comment violence, rape, and beat their wives, or are currently incarcerated. Public schools cut across the entire population spectrum and include children with legitimate social and cognitive deficiencies.
Adults also have more developed brains and better incentives to obey. a hostile worker might still care about losing their income, car, or house. It is hard to find comparable incentives for children and young adults.
"the well adjusted adults I know easily resolve issues without violence" does not mean that you should expect the same results for all adults, or for all children.
The original assertion I disputed was that we should accept that the social dynamics in a school match those of a prison.
Certainly I don’t pretend there aren’t environments where adults are violent and unreasonable. Such as prisons, or other places with “people who regularly commit violence, rape, and beat their wives.”
If your argument is that school environments must be similarly unpleasant because they take students from all strata of society, I counter: we do not take teachers and administrators from all strata of society, and society should hold schools to a higher standard than environments where violence and mental abuse unavoidably happen constantly, because we can take lessons from environments where such things are not normal.
> should hold schools to a higher standard than environments where violence and mental abuse unavoidably happen constantly
This seems harmfully naïve to me. In pursuing this aspiration we ignore the realities that exacerbate conflict. Children and teenagers are literally not cognitively developed enough (on average) to function to this standard. This remains true no matter how much we wish it weren't.
More effective policy comes from embracing this reality. "Violence and mental abuse" are inevitable consequences of the construction of hominid dominance hierarchies. Instead of fighting their construction, we should create environments where they can occur most naturally.
Why do we have to violence as inevitable just when kids are involved?
Although I'm not suggesting that we literally 'arrest and imprison' bullies, I think the first paragraph of your linked post is exactly right. The best way to stop bullying is to make it clear that it's not an acceptable behavior and to punish the perpetrators.
Right, I'm suggesting that adults are sufficiently cognitively developed to take personal responsibility for their actions. Children clearly are not. I'm not suggesting we stop punishing bullies, I'm just suggesting that we apply our knowledge of childhood psychology to the engineering of the school social environment. Unlike adults, there has been no intervention that has been demonstrated effective in stopping children from applying violence to the construction of dominance hierarchies. Lord of the flies is deemed chillingly instructive for a reason. Children typically age out of this behaviour by their late teens and go on to become functional, peaceful adults. The ones that do not are indeed destined for prison.
Children and adults are significantly cognitively different, they may as well be different species. We should embrace this reality.
>Lord of the flies is deemed chillingly instructive for a reason
It tells you what children might do if left to their own devices without adult supervision – i.e. in an environment completely unlike a school. The Lord of the Flies is also a work of fiction that's not based on any real life events, as far as I'm aware. In any actual instances of kids being stranded on an island that I've been able to find, the results were rather different: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-...
>Unlike adults, there has been no intervention that has been demonstrated effective in stopping children from applying violence to the construction of dominance hierarchies
In my school there was an effective intervention: you got punished if you beat someone up, and excluded from the school if you kept doing it. I guess no-one had told us that we were required to form 'hominid dominance hierarchies' and that we were cognitively incapable of responding to simple incentives.
>I'm just suggesting that we apply our knowledge of childhood psychology to the engineering of the school social environment
And what would this mean, exactly, beyond just accepting the inevitability of violence?
You can hold schools to any standard you want, but that does not mean it is actually achievable. My point was that being able to meet high standards with functioning adults is not evidence that it can be met with non-functioning children
> It's the same rationale as in prison - you don't want to end up at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy.
The simple fact that you think it's not a problem to somewhat approvingly compare schools to prisons is already a bad sign. Schools shouldn't be like prisons. Prisons shouldn't be like prisons either, but that's another story...
That's just not true. There are many kinds of social relations, dominance being just one particularity nasty one. Other apes also exhibit a whole range of social relations. It doesn't have to be a dog eat dog world out there, and most of the time it actually isn't.
Absolutely, and there are many kinds of social interactions at school besides bullying. My point was only that "bullying" is an expression of normal hierarchy negotiation/construction in children and should be treated as such.
> As I mentioned in my first post, conflict which is evenly matched should not be regarded the same way as conflict which is not.
This was covered by the paper. You are talking about Peer Victimization without bullying. Bullying is a form of peer victimization in which there is a power imbalance (size, numbers, status, etc).
You need help from a utility if you have an old home without adequate service from the electric company. Common example is your home is on 100amp service and that is entirely consumed by TVs, kitchen appliances, HVAC, etc.
My personal belief is that binance agreed with no intention to carry out the deal. CZ tapdanced on FTX's grave on twitter with critical comments yesterday. It is now unlikely that anyone else will want to step up to look at the deal.
My prediction: nobody will touch FTX and whatever is left of it will be in legal battles for years to come. Most will get auctioned to recoup the big fish making the most noise and maybe pennies after that for individual users which had funds on FTX. There is near zero value in an exchange-brand which took a reputational hit as big as this.
As a CEO I speak to other CEOs on a regular basis about what we're seeing. That means I'm clued in to my customers' trends, vendors' trends, and competitors' trends. I see stuff happening in my industry from a more holistic perspective than my employees. I can tell the difference between a revenue decline from a lack of competitiveness versus industry decline. You might not see us working but we talk. A lot.
It sounds like you're operating under the assumption that nothing is predictable in the economy and that we're all looking in to a crystal ball. In reality we're looking at our financials and sales trends and then comparing that data up and down the supply chain.
We're not smarter than everyone else. No, we're just more clued in to what's happening with our capital markets, vendors, competitors, and customers.
Hey! I’m currently an ml engineer and my dream is to be ceo of a mid size company one day. Do you have any advice for how I can move into that direction?
No advice but I can share my perspectives. I happened to be at the right place at the right time to start a company and be an early player in a new technology that created a multi-billion market that didn't exist before. I happened to have the cross-trained in the right combination of skills and showed up at the right time. Skill alone wouldn't have been enough.
Try to be forward thinking about what trends might be coming. It used to be easier to do this but now everyone hops on trends quickly so it's harder to maintain a head start.
I'm looking at my next venture right now and I'm mostly focused on the overall macro picture surrounding the growth prospects of an industry. Things like population dynamics are playing a bigger part of how I see opportunity. The best CEO won't accomplish much in a dying or flat industry.
Ignore people who say "X is saturated". Everything is saturated. What matters is if the market is going to grow.
Now I'm more focused on wealth deployment and preservation and trying to focus less on building new things. Building is where my passion is but it's high risk and I don't need to be taking risks anymore.
Really appreciate The time you’ve put into this! I have no wealth or anything like that, so the road for me will definitely be to work like a dog for the next 10 years and hope someone wants to pay handsomely for what I build (honestly even being a senior at faang I’ll never escape the middle class paying income tax). Afterwards I’ll move to a lower tax/col country snd live like a king
Bull fucking shit. If CEOs can talk their way into predicting the economy, why the fuck are most companies firing large swaths of their workforce? Couldnt predict a tech recession after a global pandemic?
The average CEO can't even figure out why they can't seem to hire new people, but somehow they are very well clued in to market fluctuation? I think it is more reasonable to assume equal competence.
I completed medical school back in 2012. Here's the unfortunate rub with this particular class--organic chemistry is a requisite for medical school and probably shouldn't be. The class is mostly pre-med students and very few chemistry majors. It seems that once upon a time some administrators decided that students should complete 2 years of chemistry and organic chemistry happened to be the most common second year course available.
Physics courses, at least at my alma mater, were separated in to physics for physics majors("honors physics"), physics for engineers, and physics for life sciences. A similar structure would be a great compromise to maintain the quality of education for those continuing on to perform organic synthesis versus those who want to be physicians. I was exposed to exactly zero organic chemistry in medical school or beyond.
Maybe there should be an entire pre-med degree. Or at least half of it, fully focused on the subject. Some other countries just straight up admit to med-school and those who don't pass examinations end up doing things like chemistry, and rightfully treated as such students.
I think there's something to that (but also it is applicable to some other professions). Trouble is it would change the complete order of things (having a 'higher' high school as a prep or similar). Unfortunately, it'd never happen as too much is already tied up in keeping in place the artificial dividing line that separates high school and higher education (think economics, whingeing employers, etc., etc.).
"Here's the unfortunate rub with this particular class--organic chemistry is a requisite for medical school and probably shouldn't be"
I've not studied medicine but I've some organic chemistry knowledge thus I've come across this bane of contention previously from others. It doesn't take long for organic chemistry to get bogged down in technical details that I reckon wouldn't be needed by most medical professionals. For instance the angle formed between a benzene ring and an amine group after bonding. That's useful info to chemists but to few others.
But where to we draw the line and how do we determine whether it's actually relevant? I'll make an observation on that question at the risk of encroaching upon your profession with an example (please bear with me I'm not a professional pharmacologist).
Let's start with a well-known example: the metabolism of ethanol by the liver. If I put on a chemist's hat then I'd not be expected to know much more than that the liver employs enzymes to partially oxidize ethanol to acetaldehyde thence from there to acetic acid and finally water and carbon dioxide.
However, if I specialized in the area then I'd need to know much more such as the Gibbs free energy for each metabolic stage and calculating that suddenly becomes very complicated, it'd require me to know much more about the liver's physiology and its enzyme processes. If so, then I'd posit the level of knowledge I'd require would be more than would be expected of you if you were, say, a general practitioner.
Viewing it from your side, you'd have to know enough basic organic chemistry to make sense of the various stages the liver goes through to reduce ethanol to H2O and CO2 such as the basics of Gibbs free energy as ethanol's metabolism provides the body with energy thus you'd have to have an overview of how enzymes go about their work—alcohol dehydrogenase/ADH for instance.
This is where drawing lines gets complicated. If we treat an enzyme as a black box that does various things then we can map out an overall picture of how the liver does its job and perhaps that's all the average practitioner needs to know (I'm not familiar with the extent of that requirement). However, if you are required to have a thorough understanding of how enzymes work then a much greater knowledge of organic chemistry would be required. For instance, the chemistry of alcohol dehydrogenase/ADH and it's complicated, so too the final stage of ethanol's elimination wherein acetyl coenzyme A is involved.
From an outsiders' perspective, it doesn't seem reasonable to me that to do their job that those on the first line of medicine would need chemistry to a depth required to understand how acetyl-CoA works at the molecular level. That would seem a waste of time.
On the other hand a basic understanding of organic chemistry seems necessary to have a cognizant overview of the workings of the liver.
Looking in from the outside it's a difficult call. My own doctor usually writes prescriptions in a drug's proprietary name, on occasions he asks if I want the cheaper generic version to which I always answer yes, he's then been been known to ask me for its chemical name having forgotten it (for some unclear reason he seems to assume that I know more chemistry than he does).
Perhaps this is an indicator that many if not most doctors practice drug/pharmacy medicine at a much higher level than that of molecular chemistry—if so then it would seem that having to have detailed knowledge of the subject at this low level is unnecessary.
Apologies if that seemed a little short on in depth. I intended more but omitted some relevant stuff for brevity (there's more to discuss about this topic but there's practical limits to that on HN). Also, as my profession is electronics, my emphasis may seem a little off not having the same familiarity with the issues as you would have.
I appreciate your effort in this post. I am a practicing physician and also a person who majored in biochemistry, rather than the more pre-med focused biology/chemistry major offered at my institution. My opinion is that organic chemistry is a great window into the complexity of biologic chemistry that happens to be the foundation of medicine.
Is it necessary for all physicians to peer through this window in order to practice quality medicine? Perhaps not. But does it give us an appreciation, and humility for, the astounding complexity of biologic systems that underpin all clinical interventions? Ideally so. At some point during pre medical training there should be - to be blunt - a filter that separates adaptable and bright students from those who hazily wish to pursue medicine but do not have the capacity to do so at a high level.
There are many career paths for those who can not adapt and learn at the high level which has been traditionally been required to complete medical school. We can, as a society, either lower the standards or maintain that high level of requirement that has been the badge of "MD." My bias of course, having completed 13 years of education after high school, is to recommend that we do not lower the standards of the MD process. The system, as it has evolved to date, has plenty of opportunity for those who desire less rigorous training, for example nurse practitioner and physician assistant tracks. There is still a place in this world for highly trained and motivated individuals who wish to be the best in their field. Signed, a professional who benefited from the strong institutions that create medical doctorates.
The position you've put about medicine is essentially as I've come to understand it having viewed it from the outside.
Had I wanted to do medicine I've no doubt that I'd have thought twice about it given the long and tenacious path I'd have had to have taken to get there. My interests were always in basic science and engineering, so I was never in the position of having to make those awkward decisions.
That said, it wasn't a completely black and white process, at one stage I started pharmacy but changed my mind, that may be obvious from my earlier comments.
I've no doubt that filtering is needed to weed out the less motivated but as I've said elsewhere, I've concerns about how it's done. If good people are weeded out because of say their circumstances then society loses the benefit of their input.
My opinion about organic chemistry is that it is a tremendous subject and I have an abiding interest in it. I think this puts me in a good position to appreciate the dilemma medical people face when confronted with the subject. As you know it can get complicated quickly and getting to grips with it can take a lot of work and time—time that many cannot afford to commit.
While I agree that we shouldn't lower the standards of the MD process I am not convinced that proficiency at organic chemistry is predictive of physician quality. I'd rather see physicians studying computer science than ochem as tech seems more relevant to the future of medicine. To that extent I'm always willing to entertain reform.
"I am not convinced that proficiency at organic chemistry is predictive of physician quality"
Reckon that's true from the very small sample of my own doctors. It would be nice if we had anecdotal info from MDs who reckon it was actually useful and the reason for why it was.
I appreciate your thoughtful response. Some of the concepts you mentioned, such as Gibbs free energy, are covered in intro physics, intro biology, and biochemistry courses that are also required as a physician. I believe one biochemistry class as an undergrad and one year of biochemistry instruction in the first 2 years of medical school.
A simplified organic chemistry course could cover the theory of SN1/SN2 attacks, orbitals, some ochem principles, some medical-focused examples of organic chemistry, and some basic mechanisms. It would not require students to creatively solve synthesis questions on exams or memorize long lists of reactions. To that extent maybe even the first of the two part classes is enough.
I never heard of anyone talk about organic chemistry as anything other than a filter class for pre-meds. It's a bit of academic hazing to wash out weaker pre-meds from the undergrad program. Maybe because it effects the university's match rate. Students care about their undergrad's medical school match statistics when they apply. From what I remember hazing does wash out the weaker students who don't have as high of general intelligence or work ethic.
My school had weed out classes in my program, but it had nothing to do with graduate admissions or competitive rankings.
The point was that it's better to have a student struggle and make adjustments earlier rather than later in their education. Regardless if that adjustment is "spend more time studying" or "change from STEM to something easier", it's better for it to happen in a students first year than fourth year in college.
The system seemed to work well to me. Lots of smart kids who didn't have to work very hard in high school learned early that they were going to have to work harder in college. Other kids realized they were better changing majors. Everyone who was still in the program their junior year had the confidence that they could graduate.
"Lots of smart kids who didn't have to work very hard in high school learned early that they were going to have to work harder in college."
Some don't learn early either. I was smart enough to coast along for quite a while doing little and then I suddenly had to apply myself (it was a bit of a shock). I had to relearn how to apply myself and it was harder than I anticipated.
Of course, this never applied to truly brilliant kids (they're the ones I envy). It also doesn't help when one's parents kept pointing to a couple of brothers who lived several blocks away from my home and saying to the effect 'why can't you stop mucking around and just apply yourself like them'. (They were in different classes to me and a year's difference separated them. Trouble was my mother and theirs used to associate with each other (mother's club and all that stuff), so such comparisons were easy.)
It turned out later that it wasn't that they just had normal brains but with lost of application to study—but more. Some years later (perhaps a decade or so) I opened the pages of Scientific American and started reading a fascinating and informative article, it was then that I turned to the author's name only to realize that I knew that 'bastard'. Also a check of the references showed that he had a string of publications about the subject in other advanced publications.
My experience in medical school is that your success is based on your ability to memorize large amounts of information that is of low conceptual difficulty in short periods of time. This isn't a trait that is selected for in passing ochem. Furthermore, ochem is the last time in your undergrad or medical school training where you'll be faced with that level of conceptual rigor.
You could just as easily ask all the undergrads to train for a marathon and see who has the discipline to follow through. It would probably be more relevant because at least its health-related.
I think overall we want our doctors to have high general intelligence so we'll continue to demand o-chem. We all have our biases against the kids who couldn't pass o-chem.
"We all have our biases against the kids who couldn't pass o-chem."
Do you think that really true? I know some people who struggled with it who took it (or had to take it) as a major. Others, found it easy because they were good at remembering many details, yet others loved its systematic order.
I love the subject but the amount of detail drives me batty at times (one only has to thumb through a copy of Merck to be overwhelmed by the number of processes, etc.)—and I don't have a photographic memory.
However, I don't see that as a major issue in the long run, for if one is heavily involved with some of its specialized threads/areas then it all makes sense at that level (well sort of for much—duh, some—of the time).
Unlike physics where the rules seem clearer and more straightforward, the detail in o-chem throws people (especially those who don't have a good memory for detail). From my experience, this can become an acute problem around exam time when other subjects are competing for attention. Some people do much better in that situation than others, it doesn't mean that they're not good students, or haven't tried hard enough—or that they even dislike the subject.
It seems to me it's the nature of the beast that is actually the real culprit. Perhaps that ought to be taken into account when teaching the subject (for instance, we could offset o-chem exams from others by scheduling them to be held at a different time of year).
"It's a bit of academic hazing to wash out weaker pre-meds from the undergrad program"
In undergrad chemistry my lab partner was a med student whereas I was doing science and engineering. In essence, there were unavoidable common core threads for everyone.
I'm not saying that's good or bad but it was problem for my co chem student not because he was doing poorly but because he was overloaded (his workload was definitely much heavier than mine).
His experience is the reason why I'm not in favor of that approach because it also filters out good students who do badly for other reasons. For example, some students have family commitments and don't have as much time available for study. Others have less time because they have to travel long distances to lectures.
Take my situation, for a part of my studies I used to travel the better part of 200 miles round trip by train and bus each day. I'd leave home when it was dark and also arrive home when dark—that was nearly 6 hours traveling per day.
Making up time studying on the train wasn't an option as I'd just fall asleep. If I'd been doing medicine and that weeding out process adopted then I'd not have stood a chance.
Edit: at a different period when I eventually managed to get closer to uni my flatmate was also a med student and he too always had a much heavier workload than I did.
If I'd been a med student under those conditions, I reckon I'd have wanted to ditch organic chemistry if given half a chance.
