This (probably intentionally) echoes the Critical Theory pedagogy fad that claims standardized tests are racist and âoegamedâ - but this is a fad which, in reality, many California schools ascribe (one example among many: https://www.latimes.com/califo... [latimes.com]) not Florida.

I think you misunderstood. It's not the actual test that would be gamed but the administration of the test. Only a random sample of students is tested from each school and some schools might not participate. One could use this to bias the results though the NCES tries to control for it.

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsrep...

I was actually quite impressed that Florida was doing so well given the perception that their schools are so bad. I just happened to talk to retired teacher after reading those post, and they mentioned that the test could be "gamed", so I looked it up.

If the Florida results holdup, other states should follow their example. However, before investing in such an overhaul, it should be studied and confirmed. Note, I have no proof they are gaming the test administration, but Florida does have a history of similar shenanigans.

https://climate.law.columbia.e...

Personally, I think there is something to your claims. It's just so dramatic that it needs to be confirmed. Even if they are bending the rules a bit, there probably is some merit to their strategy.

In the meantime Florida, which has foregone the above approaches, ranks around the top 5 in K-12 per the NAEP rankings, and number 1 per U.S. News.

Unfortunately the NAEP can be gamed since they sample from schools. Given the track record of states like Florida with things like covid, it's plausible they would do this. Personally, I think the strategies you mention would be effective, but I'd like to see some real research to back up this surprising result. But this is unlikely in the near future...

The way I see it, Republicans try to minimize the average unhappiness, while Democrats try to minimize the maximum unhappiness. So Republicans focus on majorities and Democrats focus on minorities as a result.

Maybe that is their public facing position. Both parties are aligned with helping corporations (you need money to win elections), so it's sometime hard to see a substantial difference. The side project of the Democrats is to help the marginalized while the Republicans are all in with the corporations/rich.

It helps to have the corrupt media machine that Roger Ailes helped create. This allows Republicans to lie with little push back from their core base, though there are limits in terms of how far they can go. You can see the beginnings in the Nixon memo. He learned from his failures and created something that lasted passed his death. Social media has just amplified the problem.

It is sadly true that the left wing side of the country is every bit as intolerant as the far right wing. They are one coin, with two different sides. Not identical, but far left and far right are consumed by their core values.

OK, but the size of the far left is much smaller than the size of the far right. You are basically comparing a fringe, which always exists, to a sizable chunk of the current Republican party. Just because conservative media makes a stink about them and their twitter posts doesn't mean they are truly significant.

Semiconductor companies should take a leaf from Trump's book and tell him construction will start in two weeks.

Sadly, Trump is probably OK with that. He just wants to claim success. With his base, he doesn't need to achieve it.

So I return to my original statement. If I routinely provided my employer with inaccurate, unreliable reporting I would get fired too.

It's this kind of rationalizing that is the problem. You have no idea how the report is created or how it is updated. Instead, you focus on a naive argument based on how your job works. Why do you spend so much time typing this stuff instead of just looking it up? Why do you defend Trump by imagining an justification for him instead of just listening to what he says?

Please remind me of the last time we received a jobs report that did not get revised significantly.

They always get revised. This was a big revision, but it's just following a process and is not cooking the books. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/b...

What's more problematic is Trump lying about it. This and his new choice have people concerned he will start cooking the books. These types of games will destroy our economy.

Nope. The bullet would be causing harm. Just think about it. If you tell the killer, "please kill this SOAB" or "Do you job now" or "Shoot him", the result will be the same. However, the words are all different. So, which of these words are causing harm? Which are more harmful?

Just a head up, don't try this in court. You will get a life sentence.

Thanks for the link. In some ways, he was better than most of these conspiracy nuts. As misguided as he was, he was trying to help kids. Looks like he reached his limit and did a suicide by cop. However with his mental abilities, can't be sure.

I imagine he didn't like them, but they also were not good at their job

That's a core part of the problem, you are just imagining things. What evidence do you have that he was bad at his job? I hope it's not all the objectively untrue stuff Trump said. What is your evidence that the new guy is better at the job? Looks like a Heritage Foundation toady. https://www.axios.com/2025/08/...

When the price is in the range of competitively priced over the counter products like aspirin, it doesn't seem like a problem. However there are generics that are much more expensive/profitable and these are a problem.

More about right wing propaganda pushing that fear. Things like critical race theory, migrant caravans, and gay grooming. Some are still looking for pedophile pizza.

It is actions which caused the harm, not words.

If I ask a hitman to kill you, then it's reasonable to say my words caused harm.

Thanks!

You mean this: "This brief change means that Hunga's eruption may have caused slight cooling in the Southern Hemisphere, but the researchers say it would be challenging to glean that same information from meteorological observations alone." Europe is in the North, so not that.

What a strange reply? The location of the volcano is the South Pacific. Where is your citation that this will cause warming over the next five years in the north?