If students are being subjected to 4 GPa of pressure (40,000 bar), that's a real problem. I mean, that would crush their bodies beyond the limits of molecular cohesion, rupturing all cell membranes and turning all of their bodies' water into high-density ice. If the university is regularly murdering students this way, they should be stopped.

I'm not sure how pass/fail grades help, though.

Yeah, it was like that when I went, and it was a waste of money.

Ah whatever happened to human curiosity.

The debt you're talking about shouldn't be the result of four years of self-indulgence, but of preparation for a career.

I don't think I've ever heard of a degree in engineering called a "self indulgence" before.

But frankly put I'd rather not live in a society where everyone is hyperfocussed on where the next dollar is coming from. Work to live, no the reverse.

Wikipedia is not a trusted source

for someone who started stating facts with zero sources at all, you're awfully pedantic about what other people do. Back in the real world, wilkipedia has references.

why quoting it in any journalistic, scientific, or educational setting will result in an instant fail.

Firstly we ain't in one of those. This is more like a conversation down the pub. And second, what do you think stating "well known facts" which aren't without any citation will get you in those rarefied institutions?

More generally there is more pressure on kids these days. They didn't used to have to take on 5 or 6 figures of debt to get an education that is basically mandatory to do even entry level clerical jobs these days.

When I was an undergrad most people I knew at my uni were there to learn stuff about a subject they cared about. You know for it own sake. There were a few proto finance bros doing engineering because it could lead to a good finance job, but other than them no one was thinking about jobs specifically. I mean sure some engineers had a passion for motorsports and chose the more mechanical options and probably went on to work with cars, but it was all interest driven not job driven. Learning for its own sake because the expectation was there would be job, you'd get a job, your own place to live and go out into the world.

Because jobs existed and housing wasn't a pipe dream.

Now undergrads are all laser focused on immediate future employment and there's less learning for is own sake. Obviously this isn't an unwise choice given what 2026 is like, but it's sad their prospects are so narrowed and that does affect them.

If it needs done , what is your thesis that they should stop after the first semester. Would you fly on a rocket designed and built by people who could not fail?

This is nonsense basically, given the topic.

My undergrad university graded prelims (first year exams) but did not use the results beyond that. Everything graded was in a huge blob known as finals at the end of year 3 (then also year 4 by the time I arrived).

There were a variety of reasons this was the case. Degrees were traditionally determined by finals, and the people in charge didn't exactly have what may be known now as a "change mindset". Modules were just starting to come into vogue, but they didn't like the idea that undergrads could go into the last exam having forgotten and discarded lots of what they'd learned already. Also modules were new fangled.

And finally, because prelims were kind of irrelevant given the finals results. Anything learned in year 1 you will have gone far beyond by year 3. The later stuff matters more and is dependent on the earlier stuff anyway, so anything from year 1 is implicitly tested in year 3.

It's a good question, but I think framing it as what humans need to do to be able to live alongside ASI is the wrong way to look at it. The right way to look at it is "What do humans need to learn how to do to have fulfilling lives?".

Of course that question also depends on what makes sense for humans in a world run by benevolent ASI. We don't need to bother thinking about humans' role in a world run by malevolent or even disinterested ASI because there will be no role.

Sort of. When my kids were in public school in the 2000s and 2010s, book encyclopedias were sometimes grudgingly accepted as source. Not always, and it was often made clear that they weren't proper sources (because they're not!). The solution was to use Wikipedia but to follow the reference links to the primary sources it cites and use those.

I thought that wasn't just a good answer, but a strict improvement over accepting hardcover encyclopedias, both pedagogically and as a matter of scholarly principle.

In the spirit of modern /., you should probably call me a liar and a moron and make some political argument.

Sigh.

I was pointing out what I believe to be a well-known fact

This does not stop you being a hypocrite. First, it ain't a "well known fact". We're not in some sort of weird formalised debate so it's fine to state supposed facts without sources. It's just pure wankery to then complain when someone does the same but in disagreement with you.

FWIW wikipedia disagrees with your "well known fact".

Someone in this administration is making bank from Kalshi.

Donald Trump Jr. for one.

https://finance.yahoo.com/mark...

Excellent argumentation. I especially liked your sources.

Oh I'm arguing with a cockwomble. You provided none of those for our first claim so you're a complete hypocrite to complain that I also countered without them.

That's how lawsuits work. You got after one major target and the ruling results in mandates or requirements for entire industries.

No, that's not how it works everywhere.

CA is #6 in homeless per capita among states. #1 is NY. I can't find any good nationwide numbers on homeless spending; it doesn't seem like anyone collects that data. However, I did find numbers from CA and NY, and NY spends nearly three times as much per capita as CA, so CA is definitely not #1.

Per the official poverty measure, CA is #22. That's arguably not a great measure, though, since it assumes the value of a dollar is the same everywhere. Using the supplemental poverty measure, CA is #2, behind Louisiana (#3 if you include DC, which falls between LA and CA). LA is high because people are actually very poor. CA's poverty rate is high even because though incomes are relatively high, housing is very expensive. Anyway, not #1.

CA is #11 in percentage of income collected, though it does have the highest marginal rate. It's important to keep in mind that CA's tax burden is more progressively allocated than most other states. If you're middle-class, your tax burden in CA is about the same as someone in TX or FL. If you're poor, CA is cheaper. If you're rich, CA is more.

#6, not #1. LA, NM, MI, TX and NV are numbers 1-5. Well, that's "average literacy score". If you want to look at percent with literacy skills at or below PIAAC level 1, then CA is in a three-way tie for #2. #1 is NM, #2-4 are CA, TX and MI. Either way not, #1.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in CA, mostly because of their ridiculous gun laws, but it's a pretty decent place to live by most measures. It's best if you're highly-educated and highly-skilled, because while it costs a lot to live there, you can also make a lot of money.

$424 USD.