Yeah but that's just one of those lucky few that came back to their forced education despite their experience. OP is right, forcing kids into stuff makes most kids hate the subject, completely regardless of its usefulness later in life.
It took me a good decade after high school to find love in topics like geography, biology, history, some parts of physics etc. which were forced down my throat to frankly insane needless levels at school.
A lot of child's momentum is lost because a) teaching well consistently is hard and I see little effort to ie utilize modern psychology for improvement ; b) every kid is unique in many ways, differently developed at early years ; c) being a teacher is seriously underpaid and underappreciated so best leave or don't even start career in it ; d) traditional teaching topics go way too deep and focus more on encyclopaedical knowledge which is sort of obsolete in 2023 ; e) don't focus on properly useful stuff in ie high school like communication, team work, some basic psychology to grok people around you, understanding personal finances and taxation and probably many more reasons.
Most kids aren’t interested in classical music and that probably shouldn’t be the default for so many teaching methods. If you want kids to play, make it fun. Teach them the music they listen to.
When my kids were taking music lessons the teacher would sometimes try to talk to me after the lesson and tell me what they did and wanted to discuss with me what to teach next and my reply was always the same - why are you having this conversation with me? It’s my kid that you have to keep engaged. I’ll keep paying for lessons as long as my kid wants to play. Discuss this with my kid.
Maybe most kids don't really have a chance of learning what they really want, if all their major life choices are made for them.
"If he didn't play the first 6years, he won't be able to enjoy "jamming" with friends"
Have you ever learned something with passion vs were forced to?
When kids want to learn something, they are really, really fast at it, meaning he could have started learning at that moment. And you can do simple jamming, without a proper musical education.
I've seen this for months now. We have a highly upvoted tweet that is one sided with very little actual discussion as to why this may be the case. Instead it's wild speculation about this being malicious, that Elon is Hitler, and he is micromanaging toilet paper supply. Fake news is treated as fact around here as long as it fits the space man bad narrative.
Easy rebuttals here:
1. This doesn't violate the WARN act. This only requires 60 days notice, which Elon provided by continuing to pay everyone for 90 days.
2. There is no "severance letter" to receive. The severence is three months pay.
3. Twitter user didn't clarify if he was an employee or contractor. Doesn't clarify whether he was fired or laid off. Doesn't clarify whether if he was laid off if it was part of the mass-layoff or a different smaller round that didn't require 60 day notice. Didn't clarify whether he continued to be paid at all after he left.
My typical disclaimer: I am not pro-Elon. I am anti-bullshit. There is a lot of bullshit happening here. I would love to be proven wrong and have clarification around the massive amount of missing information here. I am very pro-worker and absolutely want these people to get paid.
> 1. This doesn't violate the WARN act. This only requires 60 days notice, which Elon provided by continuing to pay everyone for 90 days.
> 2. There is no "severance letter" to receive. The severence is three months pay.
Are you implying that by providing severance pay of 90 days he is both complying with the 60 day limit and the severance pay? He is legally required to provide back-pay for those 60 days, the severance is independent of the back-pay. So he'd have to pay for 150 days in total.
> Are you implying that by providing severance pay of 90 days he is both complying with the 60 day limit and the severance pay?
Yes
> He is legally required to provide back-pay for those 60 days
I agree, but I don't think severance is necessarily independent from pedantic point of view, and technically severance doesn't "have" to be anything - it's whatever he wants it to be as long as it's at least the 60 days. In this instance I believe he provided 90 day severance both to fulfill his legal obligation and also threw on another month for goodwill.
Do you have any legal resources that describe this as a possibility? I see no overlap between back-pay and severance, but I might be overlooking something. Though I hope you're not just arguing from a "technical" and "pedantic" point of view, since that doesn't have any meaning in the legal world.
Meh. I’ve worked in SF in another big tech corp. I know the demographics. I know many of those that are on H1Bs and as I said I’ve been myself. I also knew people at Twitter. It was less diverse than the big ones then, at least that was the image. The stereotype was more Equinox Soul Cycle white chic career women who live in the Marina, or something like that.
> I doubt that will serve your purpose
What purpose? I’m not coming from a culture war perspective in the slightest, but purely from his micro-/mismanagement of the company, and his treatment of employees, which I have learnt directly from his own words.
If you don't have any problem with your daily itenary beinf tracked, then no explanation will be good enough for you.
Just respect the fact that people don't want their daily activities available to 3rd parties
It is not only you. The more people are OK with this, the higher the danger for other people, who are not OK with this, because data adds up and usually becomes more information than the sum of its parts. Tracking and spying are a danger to people, whose work requires them to not be tracked and found. People like journalists in oppressive regimes. While people run around merily sacrificing their privacy for the reason, that they are uninformed about these issues, they indirectly play into the hands of those, who want to make journalists shut up and disappear.
Privacy is vital for a functioning society. If not for you personally, then for others. By adding yourself to the mass of people, who do not care, you are helping in creating an environment, where privacy is not valued. Seen as something "only a few radicals want". Quickly abolished by governments in the name of "but think of the children!" or "but think of the terrorists!" and similar nonsense.
> Twitter wasn't doing anything special, and it's easy to launch a clone of their business model.
And yet nobody has done it? People think social media is easy to start and succeed. FYI, its like catching lightning.
There was a provision that Musk would be on the hook for $1B if a third party (e.g. regulators) blew up the deal in a couple enumerated ways. No such option was available to Musk himself.
It wasn’t an “opt out”, the termination fee was only available under several specific circumstances, neither of which applied to the facts at hand. He was never permitted to walk for $1 billion.
You are reading the terms of the deal incorrectly. He had the option to pay 1b only under the specific case that his financing fell through. That never happened, quite the opposite the banks backing this deal have been adamant that they were ready to go but Musk was dragging his feet.
Meanwhile, Musk was getting absolutely savaged in the Delaware chancery court and they were just in discovery. He was going to lose and that would be more embarrassing (somehow) than this outcome.
All because he went off half cocked and didn’t write bog standard contingencies into his offer.
He’s come off looking like an absolute simpleton in this and that’s the better outcome for him than if the court case had proceeded.
That wasn't a general purpose "whoops, takesie backsies" clause, it was contingent on financing falling through for an otherwise best-effort deal.
Those sort of breakup fees are to give the company some compensation for non-bad-faith purchasers having external problems, because a failed acquisition is still an expensive thing for a company to have gone through in those situations. A cold-feet buyer throwing shit at the company in public even though he has the means to close the deal? Different story.
Found the article very interesting and, loved reading. We find fulfillment in different things, and there is no one single best for many people.
PS: I found the snarky responses and accusations of "poverty tourism" to be amusing. It looks like there are a lot of bitter people who sees only their way and demonize anyone else who dont see it.
Live your life, if you find physical work a therapy, do you... if you find seating and staring at a screen your own therapy.. do you!
Hopefully, we stop trying to justify perfectly clear articles to people are only interested in making other as miserable as they are.
Under her reign it was Her Majesty’s government and she took an active role in it that wasn’t publicly visible. Laws did not take effect without her assent, and the government formed with her permission which was asked for.
Under Charles III’s reign, it will be His Majesty’s government; how actively he takes an interest in its affairs will be on him, but at a minimum laws will not take effect without his assent and his permission will be asked for to form future governments.
That’s the system of the United Kingdom. It never stopped being a Kingdom, people just chose to view the late Queen as ceremonial because it was a convenient way to square the Throne with democratic ideals, but it really isn’t all that ceremonial. The reason the customs held fast is because Queen Elizabeth II worked to make the system work. A different sort of Queen may have sparked a constitutional crisis or two by now and there’s no guarantee she would have necessarily lost to the Commons.
Small correction: not “you guys” because I’m not British, just an observant American that took a serious interest in the functioning of foreign governments as a lens through which to evaluate our own.
The functions and powers of our Presidency are a much closer derivative of the British monarchy than we tell ourselves in our classrooms. The President signing bills into law is a copy of the requisite assent of the monarchy. Political appointments were a copy of how the King vested power, and as you guessed it, the King is the Head of the British Armed Forces.
Also I think even British folks are undersold on how powerful the late Queen really was. She may not have vetoed any legislation, but her Prime Ministers sought and received her advice regularly, consulting with her and unburdening themselves to her the problems they were faced with or tasked with resolving. Put another way, she was an active participant in how laws were formed and the business of Her Majesty’s governments proceeded even if she did not participate in the drafting of the texts or have any policy objectives per se. That isn’t ceremonial at all, although many of her duties as Queen and Defender of the Faith were ceremonial.
In America we celebrate the separation of powers, telling ourselves a few myths along the way about the co-equality of branches (essentially Nixon era propaganda from when he was facing down the gun barrel of impeachment, but Congress adopted the myth despite being head and shoulders the most powerful branch of Government under the Constitution). The King-in-Parliament—or under the late Queen, the Queen-in-Parliament—is absolute power in the United Kingdom and no one may question their directives because this is King, Lords and Commons speaking as one. Their power as one body is what we separated into the President, Senate, Representatives and Supreme Court. We then limited it further by conceiving of powers as enumerated, although clearly this was insufficient as a power limiter.
Yes but the last time a monarch vetoed a law was in 1707, and that was only because parliament asked Queen Anne to veto the law.
In reality, if King Charles started vetoing then after a short constitutional crisis, parliament would basically just change the rules of the game to say that the monarch no longer has the power to veto laws.
Wouldn’t the loophole still be if one house of the parliament co-opts King, essentially simulating American democracy where you have a Republican King and Republican Party in power allowing the Republicans to veto laws and stop monarchy reform in parliament?
The British Armed Forces are also know as "Her Majesty's Armed Forces" (now His Majesty's). The official head of the armed forces is the monarch and that's who they swear their allegiance to. However, there is a long standing constitutional convention that the executive authority is given to the Prime Minister by "royal perogative". So technically the monarch, but in reality it's the Prime Minister.
If the monarch tried to actually do something significant with that power I imagine the law would be changed pretty quickly.
This is why working royals generally have various military titles and positions, because the monarch is the head of the armed forces. It's also why the monarch dresses in military regalia for various military events.
If he didn't play the first 6years, he won't be able to enjoy "jamming" with friends