With the music playlists I just really really want a button that would mark certain songs as "I like them, but not so often". Disliking makes certain artists and styles fall totally out of my playlists, not disliking makes it repeat like a broken record.
You need to counter-train the algorithm to get useful results out of it basically. Keep ignoring those videos, mark them as boring, refresh the page, etc. do content discovery the old-timey way.
Just recently they started playing the exact same ads but sometimes they have a few syllables messed up. I think I now have first-hand experience in being gaslit, it really makes you doubt your sanity if you heard the "same" ad but "wrong".
I don't think it's the ratios like 1/20 to 1/40 that are the cause, it's children in those classes. There was a HN thread about magnet/gifted schools and how they made a night-and-day difference in terms of quality of education and wellbeing for quite a few kids, just because there weren't disruptive/mean people there. That's what I've personally witnessed as well. I don't think homeschooling has any hope of beating a well-educated teacher in a good learning environment, that's what we should strive for really.
The sage-on-a-stage also comes with socializing both during and after lessons, that can't be replaced with computers. If anything, I think it'd cause a lot more sadness than the current system.
Socializing generally isn't productive for gifted children past a certain point; when they're too far ahead of their peers, there's not much value that comes from it.
Somewhat. If the gifted kids can socialize among themselves then that certainly is more beneficial. In theory it'd be nice to only interact with people like oneself but I don't see that happening, learning how to interact with others is definitely not useless but indeed depends on the amount. Not sure I'd measure usefulness with some productivity metrics, that success = productive kid at that point in time, social skills are hard to measure like that.
Children aren't really the "others" of the adult world; they aren't fully grown enough, generally, to be of interest. Were the child or adolescent interacting with non-gifted adults, it would make sense. Not so much children.
I have exactly the same experience as the previous commenters, I was also basically rescued into a (learning-)conducive environment and I'm seriously thankful for that. The alternative would've very likely been awful because I've seen on a good friend of mine what happens when there isn't an opportunity to get into a "magnet school". It basically caused clinical depression and such a strong distaste for school that it made completing even high school basically impossible.
Having been educated in probably a different country, with a different school system, I am surprised to read all these comments.
Not saying my country school system is perfect, it isn't. And there are cases of abuse, bullying does exist. But 30 years ago I was the good, shy, student in a poor neighbourhood of a big city and never suffered or witnessed anything too bad (and from 4 to 12 year old we had a kid with Down syndrome in our class). And nobody would even think about splitting kids by ability, we don't have "advanced"/"honours" classes.
In Germany we split children into three kinds of school at around age 10-11. There is decent mobility between the schools if you over- or under-perform, and little to no splitting within the same school (well, until age 16/17). It's generally a positive experience for everyone, with everyone getting the right teachers and the right mix of practical and theoretical work/learning.
At some point, every fully developed education system splits kids by ability. Not everyone goes on to advanced studies, engineering school, law, or medicine. Not everyone learns a trade.
That split might not happen until age 18, but my wager is that it does happen everywhere. The question is when is the optimal time? I tend to think earlier rather than later.
How early is “earlier”? Children have no clue of possibilities or consequences. This is why we have an age of majority: to protect kids from long term consequences of life choices they are not ready to make. Why should education be different? - what right have we to put a big cross on a child’s future and declare “you can never amount to more than this” based on childish behaviours and choices they may yet grow out of? We do this in no other area of life.
There's strong evidence that early childhood nutrition, how many words of adult conversation a child hears in a week, how safe and secure they feel as infants/toddlers, and many other differences in children's early experiences can cast a much longer shadow over their lives than the difference of being put into a class where they learn single variable algebra in 6th vs 9th grade.
What right do we have to impose these impacts on children? Or is the school tracking a form of trolley problem where it feels wrong to some to take an active choice?
Because you asked the direct question, I'll give a direct answer. "How early is earlier?" Based on an N of 5 (myself, my two siblings, and my two kids), I think it can be done productively as early as 3rd grade or so. (For me, it was done earlier than that [age 5], which I'm extremely happy about, but I'm not sure that's scalable or even typically appropriate.)
I do think that a periodic re-assessment is also appropriate. If someone "runs well" in 3rd grade and then reverts to the mean, they should revert to the mean academic leveling as well. If someone develops late and starts to excel in 7th grade, there should be a way for them to pivot towards the advanced classes then as well.
But that never happens. I come from the opposite side of the equation.
I was not allowed into the gifted and talented program in my school because I had a lot of trouble with reading when I was young. However, I was probably the most gifted person in mathematics. But the G&T program was only for people who scored high on both.
So what happened? I was stuck in the average kids where I excelled but was bored. Anytime math was being worked, I was sent to the computer lab to play on the Apple IIes.
I eventually caught up from a reading perspective but the damage was already done. The american school systems aren't prepped to manage anything out of the ordinary. So since I wasn't in the gifted program, I didn't have the accelerated math during elementary school. Therefore, I couldn't start algebra as early. That means through out high school I was bored stupid. All because of what happened when I was 7 years old.
They made a decision on a 7 year olds ability.
Did it change my life for the worse? Probably not. Unintended consequences and all. I got super interested in computers since I was stuck in a computer lab all the time. I excelled in math in college. Majored in Computer Science with a minor in Mathematics.
BUT just because it worked out doesn't mean they didn't fuck up.
Now I have children. My oldest son ALSO did not qualify for G&T program. Can you guess why? He struggled with reading in early elementary school(we tried to help but sorry, people develop at different rates). Oh my gosh but he is good in math. The difference now is there is no escape for him like I had. He is stuck being bored in class.
My youngest son is adopted so we don't have much insight on family history from an academic standpoint but he is killing it in all aspects of school. He likely will be in the G&T program. Yet, I don't believe he is superior in intellect compared to my oldest. They have different skillsets.
So yeah, I think doing G&T determination in elementary school is pretty dang stupid. That crap will all fall into place naturally in middle school.
It is a system based on laziness and testing to the tests.
I didnt see this growing up and dont see it now. Anyone can enter G&T at any time and kids drop out as well. Be an advocate for your kid with the administration. At one school we attended, math was done in 4 week blocks. There was a test to rank the kid for that block and then they were grouped with like skilled kids.
My wife volunteered a lot for the school and as a result she knew all the administration. She was able to get our preferred teacher each year etc. Get to know the teachers and administration, help them out. They can bend any rule at any time.
We are in private school now. In my son's 1st grade class (mostly 7 year olds), there is a kid who just turned 5. Private school could be a good option.
Public schools even within the same school system can be different, so dont generalize across the entire public school system.
Similar story here but in a different country in eastern Europe where there's no G&T program. I had access to intensive math though and shudder at the thought of my son would have to deal with that. He's currently just 2yo so we don't have an insight yet..
In the US we have increasing numbers of students who don’t speak English? Is it ability grouping to give Spanish instruction? Are such students not “disruptive”?
> Why would you say that the lower frequency would be better for thermals and power consumption?
Because transistors have a capacitance that one has to drive, higher frequency requires more voltage and more voltage means bigger leakage currents which means more heat and power consumption.
