I have turned at least one friend onto history podcasts using Mike Duncan's work. Now our wives look at us like we're a bunch of two headed goats whenever we meet and talk referncing revolutionary figures and events, raving about how much more "you feel the history" when visiting Rome and Paris and know some of the history. It's great!
I just finished carlins kings of kings episodes before visiting the british museum. Carlin mentioned the contrast between what was depicted in the Assyrian and Achaemenid empires palace/throne and being able to see it in the museum with the added context made me appreciate it so much more.
Visited Rome/Pompeii with my GF and she said it was like having a private tour guide. I just felt like I knew so little and could only add sparse bits of context.
Dan Carlin has a great radio voice, and is an entertaining presenter. Hardcore history is really only okay on the history front though. Plus they are relatively shallow with how short they are.
I think Carlin himself would be the first to admit that, even does so in the intro to many episodes. I think he already suffers from the length of some of his series.
Revolutions is my go-to. I also listened to History of Rome from Duncan. And because of this History of Byzantium is on my to check out list as well. I will try the others you mentioned. I'm very eager to find others as in depth as revolutions. Thanks!
Blows my mind that 1:1 tutoring dwarfs the impact of other factors such as socioeconomic status, reinforcement, assigned homework, classroom morale, etc (at least according to the researchers).
Does anyone know if this thesis has been replicated? Or if these results hold in modern times (original study was 40 years ago)?
The article states that Anaina and Burke separately conducted their tests, but social robots [1] have been shown to be effective in individual tutoring. Human tutoring is not always better than a well-designed computer program [2]. There have been issues with how studies interpret their effect on group size / scalability [3].
In my experience with 1:1 before and during my Masters in Education, nothing could compare to the learning and growth my students had from that highly personalized (and personal) instruction.
It's super common for students to not understand material or express that they don't, but it's just not possible to drill into each specific student's particular knowledge or skill level in the classroom environment.
On the social and behavioral side, many students who struggle in a classroom environment transform into model students when taught with both the care and privacy of 1:1.
For me, I feel it's a combination of hyper-personalized instruction plus compassion in a relationship where it feels safer for the student to accept the value of improving at something without social pressure or embarrassment.
Seeing your launch hn made me happy. I tested one of your products in 2021. It's cool to see you and Parsagon working through iterations and finding customer traction. Mad props!
The author hits on a powerful point that is getting missed in this HN discussion. That is: talented and driven students are limited by the US education system.
Some of those young people cultivate skill by getting practice during youth. Doing that while young builds a compounding machine of personal interest + confidence + progress.
I have never seen broad data to support this, so discussions revolve around anecdotes[1]. That's fine by me though because we have countless examples of the legends of their craft who fit that mold: bill gates, zuck, warren buffett, taylor swift, mozart, da vinci... the list is long.
No single system will work for every single student. But that isn't the point. The point is that the best of the best deserve to feed their interests at a young age, which the current US upbringing limits. How many more bill gates and zuck-level creators could the world have if more talented youths could cultivate their talents very early in life?
Well, just look at the design. State education is designed to get ~97% of pupils to some minimum education level.
That means the coursework and schedules are designed specifically for the lowest common denominator of a student.
This means that if you're anything but, say, the bottom 20% of students, public school isn't an efficient use of time for you. You should be learning more in the same amount of time.
There are a lot of other problems with it too, but that's the most egregious. If education was more efficient, a lot of the other problems with it could be solved as well.
While I really want to agree with you because I spent 10 years of my education with people who were exactly the bottom 20% which was beyond frustrating, unfortunately the resources are limited, so if you try to create a society where the top 10% has all the opportunities to develop to their full potential, you'll end up leaving behind the other 90%, which will make average voter even less informed about the world around them.
> create a society where the top 10% has all the opportunities
Fixing the inefficiency doesn't necessarily mean paying more attention to the top 10% at the cost of denying resources to the bottom 90%.
One path is to develop individualized plans that allow students to work at their own pace. Instead of advancement at the end of the year, advance at attainment of a proven proficiency level.
Still require kids to physically go to school, but transform the classroom for the modern age.
Have teachers balance working with local students with working with ones in a nation-wide online network. Leverage that network of instructors and bring it to bear on a child's education, instead of leaving it entirely to those in geographic proximity.
Since most of them are teaching the same topics, start recording the lectures and promote the best of them. Balance live and recorded lecture with live hands-on local assistance as well as online Q&A.
This wouldn't increase inequality. If anything, it can't be worse than sending the richest 10% to private school while the other 90% are left to.. what it is now.
Holding back capable people from reaching their potential is a unique kind of evil to me.
It's not even about giving them more resources, but the taking away that infuriates me. The single most valuable thing a child can have is curiosity, the second most is their time. Anyone who takes away one or the other are fundamentally an enemy to me.
Forcing kids who have great potential to go at the pace of the worst is taking away both of those things at the same time. These kids don't need much babysitting, they are also completely able to learn from anything. They do not need a live instructor, that's for sure.
this assumes that the point of school is to maximize student learning. i think it's better to look at it as free daycare so that adults can work. the whole system makes more sense in that context
With a competent tutor, material and emotional support you don't need to cultivate talents, you simply create complex skills. You typically don't search so much for a hidden talent in a child as leverage their neuroplasticity and accelerated learning to lay a life-long foundation.
But this doesn't come cheap, and tutoring is also going a bit out of style, regrettably.
>On February 7, 2024, Senator Scott Wiener introduced Senate Bill 1047 (SB-1047) – known as the Known as the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act (the Act) – into the California State Legislature. Aiming to regulate the development and use of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models, the Act mandates developers to make certain safety determinations before training AI models, comply with various safety requirements, and report AI safety incidents. It further establishes the Frontier Model Division within the Department of Technology for oversight of these AI models and introduces civil penalties for violations of the Act.
You've got a company valued at $80 billion and you can get legislation put forward to kneecap your primary competition for a the price of a 2009 Honda Accord with 150,000 miles on the odometer? What great value for money!
This typically works the other way. You find politicians who support you, due to personal views or electoral idiosyncrasies, and then give them money to boost them.
The lack of data surprises me. It reads like the author has a vendetta against this brand.
They say that Air Jordans are “deflating” because auctions end at the low end of their estimated ranges, though still setting records for sneakers. All asset prices were inflated during zero-interest rate policy, and have fallen since then. What makes Air Jordans unique?
Showing sales data for Air Jordans would go further to making this point, and comparing that to Nike or sneaker sales overall, but they don’t offer that data or analysis.
Edit:
This site says that Jordan show sales were $6.6B in 2023, up 30% annually. This Atlantic write up seems misguided, if that data is accurate https://runrepeat.com/jordan-shoes-statistics
i have to disagree, there was a point between like 2013-2021 where every jordan 1 ,4 and certain 11 & 3's would resale for an arm & a leg. Attempting to get a pair for retail was a nightmare from long queues to sneaker bots making it humanly impossible to pick up a pair
now its possible to get most jordans close to retail price in the resale market or pick them up at retail as demands for most jordans is gone, unless its some crazy collab
Exactly this. This market is so hot there are bot rentals that cost $1,000s/mo to run and a whole black market of AWS accounts with 25-100K credits to run those bots to “cop a drop”.
Here’s the first episode on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/episode/5wuQ7JPneMRJTU9UJrJRNs?si=6...
And link to buy for those who prefer that over streaming https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-...