More
What Do Jeremy Lin, David Beckham, And Barack Obama Have In Common?
Americans may have their problems, but we can all agree on this. Very powerful words from Mr. Joe Torre at :22.
06.22.12
Bill Gates sure is strict on how his children use the very technology he helped bring to the masses.
In a recent interview with the Mirror, the tech mogul said his children were not allowed to own their own cellphone until the age of 14. "We often set a time after which there is no screen time, and in their case that helps them get to sleep at a reasonable hour," he said. Gates added that the children are not allowed to have cellphones at the table, but are allowed to use them for homework or studying.
The Gates children, now 20, 17 and 14, are all above the minimum age requirement to own a phone, but they are still banned from having any Apple products in the house—thanks to Gates' longtime rivalry with Apple founder Steve Jobs.
Bill Gates tasting recycled water.
Image from media.giphy.com.
While the parenting choice may seem harsh, the Gates may be onto something with delaying childhood smartphone ownership. According to the 2016 "Kids & Tech: The Evolution of Today's Digital Natives"report, the average age that a child gets their first smartphone is now 10.3 years.
"I think that age is going to trend even younger, because parents are getting tired of handing their smartphones to their kids," Stacy DeBroff, chief executive of Influence Central, told The New York Times.
James P. Steyer, chief executive of Common Sense Media, a nonprofit organization that reviews content and products for families, additionally told the Times that he too has one strict rule for his children when it comes to cellphones: They get one when they start high school and only when they've proven they have restraint. "No two kids are the same, and there's no magic number," he said. "A kid's age is not as important as his or her own responsibility or maturity level."
PBS Parents also provided a list of questions parents should answer before giving their child their first phone. Check out the entire list below:
This article originally appeared on 05.01.17
“ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. Period. Don't believe me? Let me walk you through it."
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as Mormons, are a conservative group who aren't known for being vocal about sex.
But best selling author, blogger, and mother of six, Gabrielle Blair, has kicked that stereotype to the curb with a pointed thread on reducing unwanted pregnancies. And her sights are set directly at men.
She wrote a Cliff's Notes version of her thread on her blog:
If you want to stop abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies. No for real, they are. Perhaps you are thinking: IT TAKES TWO! And yes, it does take two for _intentional_ pregnancies.
But ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. Period. Don't believe me? Let me walk you through it. Let's start with this: women can only get pregnant about 2 days each month. And that's for a limited number of years.
Here's the whole thread. It's long, but totally worth the read.
\u201cThat makes 24 days a year a women might get pregnant. But men can _cause_ pregnancy 365 days a year. In fact, if you\u2019re a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year.\u201d— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876945
But what about birth control? If a woman doesn\u2019t want to risk an unwanted pregnancy, why wouldn\u2019t she just use birth control? If a women can manage to figure out how to get an abortion, surely she can get birth control, right? Great questions.— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876946
\u2026 because of the side effects. And the list of side effects was about 1/3 as long as the known side effects for women's oral contraception.https://ow.ly/Hqdx30lOrKJ— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876947
But good news, Men: Even with the horrible side effects, women are still very willing to use birth control. Unfortunately it\u2019s harder to get than it should be. Birth control options for women require a doctor\u2019s appointment and a prescription. It\u2019s not free, and often not cheap.— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876947
If we\u2019re talking about the pill, it requires consistent daily use and doesn\u2019t leave much room for mistakes, forgetfulness, or unexpected disruptions to daily schedules. And again, the side effects can be brutal. I\u2019M STILL GRATEFUL FOR IT PLEASE DON\u2019T TAKE IT AWAY.— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876948
Men can keep them stocked up just in case, so they\u2019re always prepared. Amazing! They are so much easier than birth control options for women. As a bonus, in general, women love when men use condoms. They keep us from getting STDs, they don\u2019t lessen our pleasure during sex\u2026— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876948
Oh. I remember. Men _don\u2019t_ love condoms. In fact, men frequently pressure women to have sex without a condom. And it\u2019s not unheard of for men to remove the condom during sex, without the women\u2019s permission or knowledge. (Pro-tip: That's assault.)https://ow.ly/UHgP30lOse3— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876949
So\u2026 there are men willing to risk getting a woman pregnant \u2014 which means literally risking her life, her health, her social status, her relationships, and her career, so that they can experience a few minutes of _slightly_ more pleasure? Is that for real? Yes. Yes it is.— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876949
So it\u2019s not like sex with a condom is _not_ pleasurable, it\u2019s just not _as_ pleasurable. An 8 instead of a 10. Let me emphasize that again: Men regularly choose to put women at massive risk by having non-condom sex, in order to experience a few minutes of slightly more pleasure.— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876950
So surely, we can expect men who aren\u2019t wearing a condom to at least pull out every time they have sex, right? \n\nNope. \n\nAnd why not?— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876950
It\u2019s mind-boggling and disturbing when you realize that\u2019s the choice men are making. And honestly, I\u2019m not as mad as I should be about this, because we\u2019ve trained men from birth that their pleasure is of utmost importance in the world. (And to dis-associate sex and pregnancy.)— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876951
So surely, we can expect men who aren\u2019t wearing a condom to at least pull out every time they have sex, right? \n\nNope. \n\nAnd why not?— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876950
It\u2019s mind-boggling and disturbing when you realize that\u2019s the choice men are making. And honestly, I\u2019m not as mad as I should be about this, because we\u2019ve trained men from birth that their pleasure is of utmost importance in the world. (And to dis-associate sex and pregnancy.)— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536876951
But did you further know that men CAN get a woman pregnant without HER feeling any pleasure at all? In fact, it\u2019s totally possible for a man to impregnate a woman even while causing her excruciating pain, trauma or horror.— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536877031
No matter how many orgasms she has, they won\u2019t make her pregnant. Pregnancies can only happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies can only happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536877057
Let\u2019s talk more about responsibility. Men often don\u2019t know, and don\u2019t ask, and don\u2019t think to ask, if they\u2019ve caused a pregnancy. They may never think of it, or associate sex with making babies at all. Why? Because there are 0 consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies.— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536877098
If the woman decides to have an abortion, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation.— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1536877110
Blair's controversial tweet storm have been liked hundreds of thousands of time, with the original tweet earning nearly 200,000 likes since it was posted on Thursday, September, 13.
The reactions have earned her both praise and scorn.
Most of the scorn was from men.
Men AND women both need to take responsibility for their own actions. I've said that many times. To say otherwise just isn't being realistic.— CitizenPatriot (@CitizenPatriot) 1537102869
But Blair wouldn't budge.
You are incorrect. A woman having an orgasm while with a man risks nothing and hurts no one. A man having an orgasm while with a woman risks her life. A dick without a condim is a dangerous thing and has killed more people in human history than any war or weapon.— Gabrielle Blair (@Gabrielle Blair) 1537085191
For other men, the tweet thread was a real eye-opener.
I just want you to know from a guy that your entire line of argument on this thread is 100% accurate. Thanks for taking the time to put this out there. Every adult in this country SHOULD read this.— Jarrod Broussard (@Jarrod Broussard) 1537235101
Women everywhere applauded Blair's bold thread.
Thank God for this. I have had so many arguments with men over the years about their part of responsibility for pregnancy. The phrase "she got pregnant" sends me to the moon! Blessings to you Gabrielle!— What else is possible? (@What else is possible?) 1537204198
Pulitzer, Nobel, everything else. You deserve the whole lot!— Sally \ud83d\ude97\ud83c\udfce\ufe0f\ud83c\udfc1\ud83d\udc3e\ud83d\udc15\ud83c\udfd4\ufe0f (@Sally \ud83d\ude97\ud83c\udfce\ufe0f\ud83c\udfc1\ud83d\udc3e\ud83d\udc15\ud83c\udfd4\ufe0f) 1537261201
This article originally appeared on 02.22.19
It’s got nothing to do with bootstraps.
Any time conversations about wealth and poverty come up, people inevitably start talking about boots.
The standard phrase that comes up is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," which is usually shorthand for "work harder and don't ask for or expect help." (The fact that the phrase was originally used sarcastically because pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps is literally, physically impossible is rarely acknowledged, but c'est la vie.) The idea that people who build wealth do so because they individually work harder than poor people is baked into the American consciousness and wrapped up in the ideal of the American dream.
A different take on boots and building wealth, however, paints a more accurate picture of what it takes to get out of poverty.
Author Terry Pratchett is no longer with us, but his writing lives on and is occasionally shared on his official social media accounts. Recently, his Twitter page shared the "Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness" from Pratchett's 1993 book "Men At Arms." This boots theory explains that one reason the rich are able to get richer is because they are able to spend less money.
If that sounds confusing, read on:
\u2026 He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of okay for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars\u2026\n2/5— Terry Pratchett (@Terry Pratchett) 1643144843
Pratchett wrote:
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."
In other words, people who have the money to spend a little more upfront often end up spending less in the long run. A $50 pair of boots that last five years essentially cost you $10 a year. But if you can only afford $10 upfront for a pair of boots that last six months, that's what you buy—and you end up paying twice as much over a five-year period.
There are so many areas in which this principle applies when you're poor. Buying in bulk saves you money over the long run, but you have to be able to afford the bulk cost up front. A reliable car that doesn't require regular repairs will cost more than a beater, but if the beater is all you can afford, that's what you're stuck with. You'll likely spend the same or more over time than if you'd bought a newer/higher quality car, but without the capital (or the credit rating) to begin with, you don't have much choice.
People who can afford larger down payments pay lower interest rates, saving them money both immediately and in the long run. People who can afford to buy more can spend more with credit cards, pay off the balances, build up good credit and qualify for lower interest rate loans.
There are lots of good financial decisions and strategies one can utilize if one has the ability to build up some cash. But if you are living paycheck to paycheck, you can't.
Climbing the financial ladder requires getting to the bottom rung first. Those who started off anywhere on the ladder can make all kinds of pronouncements about how to climb it—good, sound advice that really does work if you're already on the ladder. But for people living in poverty, the bottom rung is just out of reach, and the walls you have to climb to get to it are slippery. It's expensive to be poor.
When people talk about how hard it is to climb out of poverty, this is a big part of what they mean. Ladder-climbing advice is useless if you can't actually get to the ladder. And yet, far too many people decry offering people assistance that might help them reach the ladder so they can start taking advantage of all that great financial advice. Why? Perhaps because they were born somewhere on the ladder—even if it was the bottom rung—and aren't aware that there are people for whom the ladder is out of reach. Or perhaps they're unaware of how expensive it is to be poor and how the costs of poverty keep people stuck in the pit. Hopefully, this theory will help more people understand and sympathize with the reality of being poor.
Money makes money, but having money also saves you money. The more money you have, the more wealth you're able to build not only because you have extra money to save, but also because you buy higher quality things that last, therefore spending less in the long run. (There's also the reality that the uber-wealthy will pay $5,000 for shoes they'll only wear a few times, but that's a whole other kind of boots story.)
Thanks, Terry Pratchett, for the simple explanation.
This story originally appeared on 01.28.22
It was the largest such event ever filmed.
They were in Greenland, gathering footage from the time-lapse they'd positioned all around the Arctic Circle for the last several years.
They were also there to shoot scenes for a documentary. And while they were hoping to capture some cool moments on camera, no one expected a huge chunk of a glacier to snap clean off and slide into the ocean right in front of their eyes.
A glacier falls into the sea.
Massive swells created by large chunks of glacier falling away.
For nearly an hour and 15 minutes, Balog and his crew stood by and watched as a piece of ice the size of lower Manhattan — but with ice-equivalent buildings that were two to three times taller than that — simply melted away.
A representation demonstrating the massive size of ice that broke off into the sea.
As far as anyone knows, this was an unprecedented geological catastrophe and they caught the entire thing on tape. It won't be the last time something like this happens either.
Balog had a reputation since the early 1980s as a conservationist and environmental photographer. And for nearly 20 years, he'd scoffed at the climate change heralds shouting, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
"I didn't think that humans were capable of changing the basic physics and chemistry of this entire, huge planet. It didn't seem probable, it didn't seem possible," he explained in the 2012 documentary film "Chasing Ice."
There was too much margin of error in the computer simulations, too many other pressing problems to address about our beautiful planet. As far as he was concerned, these melodramatic doomsayers were distracting from the real issues.
That was then.
The glacier ice continues to erode away.
He was sent on a photo expedition of the Arctic by National Geographic, and that first northern trip was more than enough to see the damage for himself.
"It was about actual tangible physical evidence that was preserved in the ice cores of Greenland and Antarctica," he said in a 2012 interview with ThinkProgress. "That was really the smoking gun showing how far outside normal, natural variation the world has become. And that's when I started to really get the message that this was something consequential and serious and needed to be dealt with."
Some of that evidence may have been the fact that more Arctic landmass has melted away in the last 20 years than the previous 10,000 years.
This article originally appeared on 11.04.15
Her earnest question about inequality in our education system was met with a grotesque abuse of power.
Teacher Deyshia Hargrave begged the question. Minutes later, she was handcuffed and placed in the backseat of a cop car.
The scene was captured below by YouTube user Chris Rosa, who attended a board meeting for Vermilion Parish Schools in Louisiana.
You can watch Hargrave begin speaking about 33 seconds in. The situation starts becoming contentious around 6:35 minutes. Hargrave is arrested at 8:35, and then walked outside in handcuffs and placed in the back of police vehicle.
Teacher Deyshia Hargrave was questioning the school board how they can vote to give the superintendent a raise when school employees have not gotten a raise ...
"We work very hard with very little to maintain the salaries that we have," Hargrave, who teaches middle school language arts, said during a public comment portion of the meeting, stating that she's seen classroom sizes balloon during her time at the school with no increased compensation. "We're meeting those goals, while someone in that position of leadership [the superintendent] is getting raise? It's a sad, sad day to be a teacher in Vermilion Parish."
According to comments Hargrave made to BuzzFeed News, she believes Superintendent Jerome Puyau was already making $110,000 before the board voted to give him a raise of $38,000. The raise alone is roughly the salary of "a teacher, or two cafeteria workers, or two janitors," Hargrave told the outlet.
"You're going to leave, or I'm going to remove you," the officer told her, as seen in the video. Many people in attendance seemed shocked. "Are you serious?" someone asked, aghast, in the crowd.
Hargrave leaves the room, followed by the officer. But moments later, someone chimed in, "he's putting her in handcuffs" — and the room erupts in disarray.
"I am not [resisting], you just pushed me to the floor!" Hargrave is heard screaming at the officer, as he forcibly removes her down the hallway and out the building in handcuffs. "Sir, hold on! I am way smaller than you!"
According to KATV News, Hargrave was booked in the city jail for resisting an officer — a fact that left many commenters online flabbergasted. School officials are reportedly not pressing charges. "Umm ... what charges could they possibly make?" one Redditor noted.
With help from the Reddit community, Rosa's video has gone viral, garnering more than 600,000 views in less than 24 hours. Clearly, Hargrave's earnest question about inequality in our education system — met with a grotesque abuse of power — has clearly touched a nerve with people across the country.
"I don't know how this teacher could have been more polite and patient in her earnest desire to find out why the superintendent deserves a raise while the teachers work harder with less," YouTube commenter Scott Wells chimed in. "She continued to press because they refused to come up with an answer. Seems like a good question to me."
We agree.
This article originally appeared on 01.09.18
"They effortlessly communicate complex concepts in a simple way."
One of the strangest things about being human is that people of lesser intelligence tend to overestimate how smart they are and people who are highly intelligent tend to underestimate how smart they are.
This is called the Dunning-Kruger effect and it’s proven every time you log onto Facebook and see someone from high school who thinks they know more about vaccines than a doctor.
The interesting thing is that even though people are poor judges of their own smarts, we’ve evolved to be pretty good at judging the intelligence of others.
“Such findings imply that, in order to be adaptive, first impressions of personality or social characteristics should be accurate,” a study published in the journal Intelligence says. “There is accumulating evidence that this is indeed the case—at least to some extent—for traits such as intelligence extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, and narcissism, and even for characteristics such as sexual orientation, political ideology, or antigay prejudice.”
Reddit user Gisgiii posed a question to the AskReddit subforum “What is a subtle sign that someone is really intelligent?” and the answers painted a clear picture of how smart people behave. They tend to be great communicators who understand their audience and are more concerned with getting things right than being right.
Here are 18 of the best answers.
"They draw wisdom from multiple sources. Wait but that might be more wise than intelligent... But I guess those two tend to be seen together a lot," — Puzzlehead-Engineer
"They can switch up the way they talk to match the person they're talking to without sounding condescending. They listen to how others learn and explain it in that person's language of understanding," — Wynonna99
"I used to work with a doctor - Tom Howard - and the day I realized he was a genius was the time he guessed every single condition a patient of mine had based on minute pieces of information about him," — Yodei_Mon
"They are curious about everything. To be intelligent you need to be knowledgeable and you can't be knowledgeable if you are never curious," — soup54461
"When they explain something they make you feel intelligent," — gwoshmi
"They spend time thinking before asking a question," — ParkMan73
"They effortlessly communicate complex concepts in a simple way," — joculator
"They know when their knowledge ends and say something to the extent of 'i don't know and anything else i say on this topic is ignorant speculation,'" — blutoboy
"They can ask really good questions."
"Edit: to anyone not understanding what mean, I’m talking about people who ask “really good questions”, not just any questions, really good ones. I don’t know how one would achieve this skill(I know I haven’t)," — milkmanbran
"They aren’t afraid to say they don’t know the answer to a question," — xchernx
"They admit to changing their mind about something," — FarAwayAdventure
"They apply knowledge from one realm into a new and relevant situation," — soubestitch
"They can genuinely consider an idea which opposes their worldview without necessarily accepting it," — paidshill29
"People who use analogies to explain concepts to others. It’s a form of code-switching and integrating concepts on the fly and is a clear indicator someone is both socially and conceptually intelligent," — SwimmerAutomatic2488
"I think intelligent people are more willing to calmly debate/discuss, rather than argue. Like, you explain to them why you disagree, and they listen to you and ask further questions about your viewpoint before offering a different perspective; as opposed to an unintelligent person, who would just resort to insults when other people disagree with them," — AngelicCinnamonBun
"Admitting when they're wrong and being willing to learn from mistakes," — siyl1979
"Humor. I think that truly funny people are often very smart and cognizant of the different ways an idea can be humorous on several levels. They also know their audience. I think the difference between say a Jeff Foxworthy and a Dave Chappelle and a Bo Burnham is their audience and their interests," — biscuitboi967
"They say they love learning and they learn something new every day. Then they listen more than talk," — throwingplaydough