Thanks for pointing this out. It makes me so sad when I see my friends waiting too long and struggling with their fertility.

Why is it that all of the most competent people I've worked with have been humble and empathetic towards failure, while most of the mediocre to not so good people have had harsh attitudes towards others? It makes me sad.

> it’s only a selfish minority that have not.

It's rather entitled and judgey to imply that people who still have some human contact are bad. Assuming the worst of people basically.

I came of age just as Macs were getting really "cool" again, around the mid 00's. In college, as soon as I got a little money in my pocket from scholarships and grants I went out and bought a Macbook.

If anything the nostalgic conservative position for me to take would be that Macs are still awesome and cool despite any critiques.

What big innovation would be scaring me away at this point? Changing architectures? That's happened in the past. Macbooks are still macbooks more or less.

Locking down the system more and more each generation isn't innovation. It isn't "conservative" to criticize vendor lock in or to prefer more user freedom over the familiar comfort of Apple's design language.

To maybe add some more particulars to this, in most Western countries governmental authority is legitimized via public opinion. We all have heard that "a well educated citizenry is critical to democracy" but one ought to also consider that one's education will impact one's opinions. So state funded education could theoretically manipulate mass opinion in favor of government backed positions over time (maybe by framing historical events in a particular way for example).

Manipulating public opinion may seem petty or roundabout for a government but having legitimized policy creates a lot of stability for decision makers so it seems worthwhile. The gambit even pays off when the majority of the public isn't persuaded by education too, since the people who agree with you are by definition the "well educated" you can give their opinion more weight without seeming like a tyrant.

That's the idea being alluded to by the parent here at least I think.

Yes, and it's an idea that has no basis on the actual, not theoretical, experience of most of us here.

My experience has been that I never learned much negative about my city/state/country in grade/high school. I had to learn all those things elsewhere.

Yeah I suppose to detect a situation like this you'd need to do some sort of meta analysis on changes in how historical narratives are framed versus government policy. Like, maybe some country goes from ally to non ally and then historical narratives around that country shift to a slightly more negative tone. I dunno.

My opinion was more shaped by accounts of education when state power waned - By the accounts I've heard Rome, the USSR, the Ottomans etc all tried to retain power by tightening control over institutions of education. It's a natural lever to grab for when things get worse, and it's also when these institutions most need to be independent.

All institutions, public, private, and communities, have a narrative that favors them. That's not particular to universities.

However out of all the institutions I have personally and anecdotally interacted with, universities have by the far the most openness to dissenting ideas, by a very substantial margin.

A lot of people revel at the amount of internal gossip and conflict within universities, but the fact that it exists, rather than there being people kicked out without question, is a testament to its flexibility.

Thank you for phrasing this so succinctly. Self-similarity pops up again and again in nature. Mostly we think of this in terms of geometry (fractals, etc...) but why couldn't self-similarity also apply to time oriented processes like cosmological evolution?

Bingo. Self-organization, in a strong sense, is the process of cosmological evolution.