I'm surprised at how few parents understand what it takes to create a great artist. You need to start when they're 5 (or preferably younger), put them in a workshop with great artists/pedagogues etc. (costly!) where they work full time (forget school), evaluate potential and there is a tiny chance they themselves will become great. Annoyed by parents talking about their 5 year olds as "too young" or when they recommend their teenager to 'pursue their dream' when they don't provide a fraction of above. It's still possible but odds go down dramatically.
Contrapoint is that you do not need to pressure kid ever since they are 5 for them to be good artist as adults.
And the second point ... why should parents to do that with their random kid before that kid even shown interest? It is not like art represented some kind of career or lifetime security or even happiness in life.
Many of the comments here are expressing disbelief that this could have been created by a 12 year old, but people fail to recognize that, not only did Michelangelo have tremendous natural talent, but grow up in a world where, as a child, he was allowed to spend enormous amounts of his time and energy studying with professional artists.
He wasn't being dropped off a school at 7am, squirming in a chair until 3pm, playing video games before dinner and then doing homework until bed all while squeezing in a bit of time for sketching.
The vast majority of people probably benefit more from our current structure, but it does make it much less likely to have "genius" of the type we see in Michelangelo, Mozart, etc.
> at the age of 13, Michelangelo was apprenticed to Ghirlandaio. The next year, his father persuaded Ghirlandaio to pay Michelangelo as an artist, which was rare for someone that young
He was literally getting education in art. It is not like there was no structure.
The apprenticeship was after this was painted. Prior to engaging in formal training he largely ignored school and spend his time painting and seeking out other painters to learn from:
> As a young boy, Michelangelo was sent to the city of Florence to study grammar under the Humanist Francesco da Urbino. Michelangelo showed no interest in his schooling, preferring to copy paintings from churches and seek the company of other painters. [0]
You can search other sources and you'll find the same: prior to apprenticeship he was not formally enrolled in any form of art education.
> The apprenticeship was after this was painted. Prior to engaging in formal training he largely ignored school and spend his time painting and seeking out other painters to learn from:
He WAS in schooling and parents sent him to that city literally for education. And then he got into apprenticeship for a vocation that was well paid and supported back then.
He was very much dropped to school and squirmed there to the forced extend. And very much, boys of his age could slack on school work in variety of ways - they did not played videogames, but they did played games in little gangs of theirs, hanging around and generally wasting time to the extend adults allowed it.
Boys and girls who draw well, have talents and spend some freetime doing that exist. They usually learn from youtube (today equivalent of him meddling with artists). They may be put into extracurricular classes, but no one sane will put them into apprenticeship for art - because art is unlikely to feed you.
Burden of proof is on the other party. In one sentence the opinion can be summarized as "if you want increased probability of child becoming a great artist you need great commitment." That's a null hypothesis.
No. Your claim is “great commitment and pressure by parents will increase the probability of their child becoming a great artist”. The null hypothesis would be “great commitment and pressure by parents will not do anything about the probability of their child becoming a great artist”.
Don't have a book but here's some quick thoughts: 1. Biographies on, e.g., Chinese pianist Lang Lang. When he was ~9 he 'retired' (it's an extreme case but telling, can recommend). 2. If you want formal/mathematical/CS perspective, study Reinforcement Learning (e.g. Rick Sutton).
Agreed it's what they're doing but this looks more like "turning everyone against you". And you want your enemies to underestimate you (like Song or Kievan Rus' underestimated the Mongols) but the world doesn't underestimate Russia. Maybe it could have but WW2 and appeasement are still too fresh in memory.
> this looks more like "turning everyone against you"
Someday, in hindsight, that might be what it looks like. Though notice that Russia has the world's #2 and rising power, China, on their side (in a marriage of convenience, I'm sure).
But I think there's an implicit misapprehension. The West is the status quo power, and Russia is revisionist, and both play out the traditional roles in that ancient game: Russia is challenging - trying to revise - the status quo order that puts the West on top. When you challenge the status quo order, lots of people invested in it don't like you; people born to the status quo can't imagine another way and reject you reflexively (and people also reflexively reject change).
This happens with tech innovation - status quo tech and disrupters. Sometimes it looks, in hindsight, like the disrupter 'turned everyone against them'. Sometimes people join them and they look like visionaries and leaders, and eventually elder statespeople. They are none of the above; they are just revisionists and sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.
> WW2 and appeasement are still too fresh in memory.
I find that hard to believe. I have no data, but my impression:
First, there has been plenty of appeasement since WWII. NATO already appeased Russia on Georgia long ago, on parts of Ukraine (e.g., Crimea) a decade ago. The West threatened but then let the Soviets crush dissent in Hungary and the Prague Spring in the mid-20th century. Détente, arguably a degree of appeasement, was US policy in the 1970s. Trying to bring China into the global order was the policy until the mid-to-late 2010s. There are many more examples.
Second, the rush to war and the abandonment of human rights as the foundation, the rule of law, international law, international institutions, the outlawing of war, NATO, the rejection of nationalism, etc. etc. ... are all abandonments of the WWII generation's lessons, principles, and accomplishments. They built the postwar order. They conducted the Nuremberg trials, specifically a demonstration of the rule of law, justice, and human rights - and some Nazis were found not guilty.
This is a core reason for my own burnout - why should I work for a culture that seemingly promotes lazy/hypocritical behavior? Reminds me of "Idiocracy" or "burn after reading" the "league of morons"
On the institutional level there's grounds to believe it unfortunately (less welfare support, more military etc) Was thinking about the term "suicidal empathy" that some politicians have been bringing up lately (wrt migration policy). It's like a new derogatory jargon.
It's more that people who historically didn't have a voice now have one. It's often stupid but sometimes also interesting and innovative. Saw a channel where a university professor "I" comes to the realization she's been left-leaning/biased for decades, that her recent male students no longer dare engage in debate because of shaming/gaslighting etc. Then I click channel description and turns out it's "100% original writing". Now if it hadn't said that it would be strawman propaganda. But now it does... Not sure how to put a finger on it, there's some nervous excitement when reading these days, not knowing who the sender is, getting these 'reveal' moments when finding out whole thing was made up by some highschool kid with AI or insane person.
"...talking 5 minutes with the average voter" and all that. Ironically, lots of these people are meanwhile fine with "AI glasses" being used everywhere. They just haven't thought it through. What if a pedophile wears them?
Yes and to be clear on what "practical" means here. If there's a mountain between origin-destination for a road trip it's relevant to highlight it. In the case of orbits the objects may be small but they're very fast and very dangerous.
I think calling them dangerous is even a bit misleading as they're well tracked. Some of them even autonomously precisely position themselves rather than be on ballistic trajectory.
Only the largest objects are trackable. Objects in the 1-10 cm range are large enough to destroy satellites instantly but too small to track. Obviously any visualization will only show known objects.
This explains both why "dangerous" is accurate, and why autonomous avoidance based on tracked objects (ala Starlink) is 'necessary but not sufficient.'
