As you increasingly mandate things that the public thinks are optional, eventually mandates in general start to look unimportant, and eventually you get less safety seat compliance.
If there are some illnesses we can handle with without universal vaccination, then including those vaccines as mandates means you’ll eventually get less compliance for high-priority vaccines too. This is what we’ve seen play out when the public distrusts medical authorities. We live in a democratic society and (not) listening goes both ways.
Every disease can be treated without a vaccine. But treatments aren't 100%, and treatments come with their own risk. Taking medicine isn't risk-free, and certainly not necessarily less risky than vaccinations. So, even if you believe it's fine to just treat the disease instead of trying to prevent it, that doesn't mean you skip out on risk. You could have more, just from the medicines alone, not even considering the effects of the disease itself.
How many deaths are acceptable to say we can "handle" an illness?
Public health requires over 95% vaccination. There has never been a realistic path to that other than requiring students to be vaccinated to attend school. Without that requirement, even well meaning parents forget or may not make it a priority.
It's not fair for kids and others vulnerable in society to die because certain parents are ignorant.
Are you prepared to jail people who don’t get covid vaccines? If not, then you understand that there are trade-offs and limitations to what public policies will actually be effective in the real world that actually exists.
Edit: added the following.
> Public health requires over 95% vaccination.
This statement, made without qualifiers, shows that you have more room to think about this. For example, we haven’t had anything like 95% immunizations for smallpox or tuberculosis for a long time, yet public health is no worse off for these reasons.
Huh? As I mentioned, it has always been a requirement for students to get vaccinated to attend school. My point still holds that if not for this requirement then we'd be below the critical threshold, whether it's 95% or slightly less.
So, let’s start from the idea that a certain vaccination compliance threshold is needed for each illness that we need to and have the ability to prevent.
And then let’s consider the reality that many parents—enough of them to matter—think there are too many vaccines, so compliance has been eroding.
This is the actual challenge: the medical recommendation might be solid, but a public policy doesn’t work unless people follow it.
Because eroded compliance threatens to undermine those critical thresholds, the public policy’s effectiveness is collapsing.
We can stay the course and watch things collapse, determined that the experts are correct and that the general public cannot be helped, or we can update the policy to be more focused so that we achieve those critical thresholds for the most essential immunizations.
Ah yes, we’re back to the idea that the public cannot be helped. The answer is that the problem is a different, unsolvable one: presumably due to misinformation, members of the public have opinions that are too strongly held for them to follow policies.
> This is the actual challenge: the medical recommendation might be solid, but a public policy doesn’t work unless people follow it. ... presumably due to misinformation, members of the public have opinions that are too strongly held for them to follow policies.
Right before you posted this, RFK Jr stated that his objectively worse vaccine schedule was weakened so that skeptical people follow it. Whether you were aware of it or not, your arguments merely parroted exactly what he and other anti-vaxxers were heavily spreading on that day.
This is precisely how misinformation spreads, and how anti-vax "influencers" like RFK Jr have a large effect both on you and the public.
- To see that in actuality Republicans as a group (influenced by prominent anti-vaxxers) dropped from 91% to 78% belief (2016-2025) that vaccine benefits outweigh the risk, see this new Pew study: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2025/11/18/how-do-americ...
Mentorships are simply how most junior scientists get started. Even in grad school, most students initially take on projects their advisors have pre-qualified as interesting.
To make high school-level competitions more fair, we should likely prioritize access to researchers for all smart, hard-working high schoolers rather than only those who are nearby a university or have wealthy parents.
RAM too. They want +$1K to go from 64GB to 128GB, with no other spec changes. It's a way of segmenting the market -- those who actually need it are willing to pay a lot more (e.g. for AI / 4K videos).
There is at least scarcity in that there are probably few M chips in the 128GB bin. NAND is commodity by comparison. You’re probably right though about market segmentation. Some people will pay that happily. Or perhaps it’s to push people to iCloud storage.
Nice job! As a US-based consultant, I've found it's always best if you immediately suggest a contract. This way you can ensure it starts with terms favorable for you.
I've also found it's pedagogically helpful to have two versions of each contract, a consultant-favored and consultee-favored. This way you can understand how each clause may be tweaked to benefit each party. For example, this book does this (US-based): https://www.amazon.com/Consultant-Independent-Contractor-Agr...
> helpful to have two versions of each contract, a consultant-favored and consultee-favored
Or, even better, instead of having only two versions of a contract, we can offer this choice on individual clauses within the contract. On some clauses the parties may choose to go with consultant-favored option whereas on some other clauses the parties may choose to go with client-favored option. This is what we ended up doing with the generator :)
In actuality, the Chinese company can't half their prices. So instead of paying $0.50 for a Chinese bolt, consumers now will pay $1.00.
Unfortunately the US bolts will not be plentiful enough. They'll also have to import steel to meet new demand, increasing their price. So ultimately you'll still buy the Chinese product but it will now cost double the price -- $1.00 after tarrifs. Hence the price of everything that has a bolt will increase.
Why can't they? You think Chinese products are priced to perfection via competition? Or maybe their government had a hand in it, or they learned to price to what the market will pay..
I guess we'll find out... Either it'll be what makes sense to me, or what some writer told you.
Sure, let's suppose they go down some. For the same reasons you'll still end up paying more for the same Chinese products, which will raise domestic prices.
Undergrads who care about learning and research will take the most challenging classes, do research with professors, and surround themselves with other strong students who will push them.
Even at top universities, very very few freshmen are capable of doing high-quality research immediately. They'd be better served learning the foundations inside and out with a cohort of similarly strong students to challenge them.
To agree with you: I've worked with several really brilliant undergrads doing and publishing great research. But all of them were rightfully undergrads. Even if they were actually capable of doing great research, they benefited from the breadth.
If you have bright enough undergrads, you change the curriculum for them within their field of expertise, so that they still get the breadth of things outside it while not wasting time with things they know. You let them not take as many classes, take graduate courses, do more research, take more courses from other departments in related areas but with different perspectives, and so on.
When I was an undergrad, in physics, there was a professor in the department who had done his undergrad there and was legendary, as was quietly mentioned in awe, for not taking any undergraduate physics courses while there; the department had let him skip all of them, and instead take graduate courses and do research.
I'm not sure that's a simple argument and can't imagine many would agree.
Undergrads who do research generally aren't very good at research yet. A major reason is they either lack or don't fully understand the pre-reqs, which they progressively and cumulatively learn during undergrad. A student can be incredibly smart, but acquiring a strong rigorous math background will still take years.
About pre-reqs: third and fourth year PureMath classes at UofWaterloo consisted of math I already took in HighSchool in Romania: group theory, ring theory. Plus some calculus I already read in high school out of curiosity: measure theory and the Lebesgue integral. Another Romanian guy at UofW was auditing 4th year classes while in his first year (he is now a math professor at an American university)
I can see a committed and gifted student being able to get most of the pre-reqs for doctoral studies in America or Canada while in high school.
If you don't know the foundations well, you don't belong in a postgrad program. That's the reality and how it currently works. Undergrad teaches you those foundations.
Anyone can try doing research, even undergrads who half-know the foundations. However, trying research doesn't mean you have the background to do great research or to succeed in a postgrad program.
Learning a specific technology for a single project may have a short half-life. However, good coders aren't defined by tech knowledge, but by their deep understanding. If you can make great presentations in Powerpoint, everyone knows you'll still make good presentations in Google Slides.
Exactly. It's like the difference between thinking about tech proficiency in terms of "being good at C++" vs. being good at software engineering and being language agnostic.
I am not sure about that example. A lot of people learn to use a specific piece of software and memorise how to do stuff and are therefore confused by the slightest difference.
This is like saying if you have nothing to hide, you should consent to police searches. What is found only provides more possibly coincidental evidence to use against you (just as DNA provides evidence about your potential health).
reply