ShranTheWaterPoloFan

It is easy, if you can get a mortgage.

I currently pay less than $2k a month on my mortgage. A 1 bedroom apartment near me is about $1.8-2.5k and a 2 bedroom is $2.5-3.5k a month. People aren't lazy and not buying houses because it's so fun to live in an apartment, they are doing it because they can't get a loan.

The only difficult thing about buying a house is the hours of paperwork and surprise costs that make no sense.

I may have missed some steps but I recall reddit removing and replacing mods of many subs.

It doesn't matter, because the damage is done. Small communities aren't what they used to be and the big subreddits are even lower quality.

Sure, but there is a world of difference between 1700 and today, and an even bigger difference between today and space faring civilizations.

I think the idea that changelings had universally negative experiences is crazy.

One of the problems with arguing with people online is I tend to assume people are arguing in good faith.

After getting about 50 studies showing that cell phones are bad for learning, I switched to duckduckgo. Not until page 3 did I find your sources. You have waded through data that says you are wrong. I'm not interested in copying them for you.

I disagree.

Great! But you have no evidence to support your argument. Your apples to oranges comparison of laptops isn't compelling. Nor am I compelled by your methodology argument, which seems to take issue with testing a hypothesis that phones are a distraction.

thought hitting was better than nothing even when they knew it was net harmful

Once again, we know cellphones are detrimental to learning. This is not a matter of schools failing to adapt to new technology. Tablets, computers, interactive software and more are used. It is about unrestricted cell phone use, which studies have shown hinders learning.

a phone ban in NY caused an increase in overall student obedience and educational productivity, ... Of course, this study does directly contradict your educatoronline article.

No it doesn't. It says that no phones mean better learning. You are missing the forest for the trees.

Crowd dynamics

Lots of research has been done on this, and a small number of people can influence a large group. Look at "wave" studies for more info.

Calling minimum acceptable classroom behavior "picking yourself up by your bootstraps" is absurd. It's like saying that you can't expect people to not talk at the theater because that's just asking too much of people.

It's like every time a person says "see, this is what happens when you don't hit children" at every behavior issue. Even though we know that hitting children objectively worsens behavior over doing nothing, but they insist that doing the only thing they know, even if harmful, is better.

But we know children learn better without phones https://www.theeducatoronline.com/k12/news/the-evidence-is-clear-students-learn-better-without-mobile-phones-in-class/276071 You are the person insisting on hitting the child here.

Putting phones in school makes learning harder.

When you have a room of 30 students and 29 of them are complaining about something ... point out how unlikely it is that those 29 students are the causal variable.

You are saying 29 out of 30 people can't be right, which is very wrong. But what you miss is that it's really 3-4 kids disrupting and the rest going along because it's easier.

It's the path of least resistance, and people will jump onto the easy path.

"Personal Responsibility" attitudes just doesn't work for crowd dynamics,

Except they do. Look at all the examples of Japanese fans cleaning stadiums.

In a crowd most people will follow the norm. If the norm is playing on your phone and not listening, the you have a bad time. It's not punishing kids because teachers are bad at their jobs, it's setting a behavioral norm.

Next time you dislike your teacher think about when you got stuck in a group with people who wouldn't do anything. Now imagine a class full of them. If just one or two more people put in a little effort good things would happen.

You do know that Excel is used in every job right?

I think strawberry pop tarts have less frosting than all other flavors.

It's petty and small, but every time I have a strawberry pop tart the frosting is so thin that the holes on the top are clear through the frosting. No other flavor has this problem. I don't think it matters, but it feels like a conspiracy.

What exactly should be done to motivate?

I ask because schools do a lot to motivate but kids often dismiss it as lame or complain about the efforts. It's very easy to say "motivate kids" but actual ideas aren't common.

Let me give you an example, everyone has heard "when will we use this in real life?" in math class. The same people asking those questions are the same that groan at word problems. So you have kids complaining that won't be able to use something in real life, and upset when they have to solve a real life problem. What's the real complaint the student has? They have to try.

I agree that so much more can be done to make school fun, but it's not all on the teachers. Students have to be present, participate and willing to leave their comfort zone in order to have better results.

I think the biggest issue isn't letting kids use a tool, it's getting kids to do the work.

I recently worked with a bunch of kids in college, all stem majors, who couldn't Google effectively or do basic math in their heads. It's not a matter of "don't let them use a resource" it's that many people won't try.

Limiting technology isn't cruelty, it's vital for learning many skills. Number sense can't be taught by a taking a picture and writing an answer.

What would you prefer the school do?

How could they motivate you to actually pay attention in class instead of playing with your phone? Honestly ask yourself if this "addressing motivation" would make geometry more interesting than tiktok.

Comic books