I think the point is that it's a lot easier to "accidentally" hit someone with a car
In many balanced literacy classrooms, children are taught phonics and the cueing system. Some kids who are taught both approaches realize pretty quickly that sounding out a word is the most efficient and reliable way to know what it is. Those kids tend to have an easier time understanding the ways that sounds and letters relate. They'll drop the cueing strategies and begin building that big bank of instantly known words that is so necessary for skilled reading.
But some children will skip the sounding out if they're taught they have other options. Phonics is challenging for many kids. The cueing strategies seem quicker and easier at first. And by using context and memorizing a bunch of words, many children can look like good readers — until they get to about third grade, when their books begin to have more words, longer words, and fewer pictures. Then they're stuck. They haven't developed their sounding-out skills. Their bank of known words is limited. Reading is slow and laborious and they don't like it, so they don't do it if they don't have to. While their peers who mastered decoding early are reading and teaching themselves new words every day, the kids who clung to the cueing approach are falling further and further behind.
These poor reading habits, once ingrained at a young age, can follow kids into high school. Some kids who were taught the cueing approach never become good readers. Not because they're incapable of learning to read well but because they were taught the strategies of struggling readers.
Another reason cueing holds on is that it seems to work for some children. But researchers estimate there's a percentage of kids — perhaps about 40 percent — who will learn to read no matter how they're taught. According to Kilpatrick, children who learn to read with cueing are succeeding in spite of the instruction, not because of it.
Maybe your kid is one of the lucky ones that can read fine regardless of how he's taught. But not everyone will be. That's the point of changing how reading is taught, to be more effective for the highest number of people.
But you could also try giving him a reading test like the ones presented at the top of this website https://readingtests.info/ and see for yourself how well he reads an unfamiliar story.
You're definitely wrong about India, and famously China Added More Solar Panels in 2023 Than US Did In Its Entire History, so I don't see why we can't be trying to reduce emissions too.
They might be the most common because they're the easiest, but there are also still plenty of people actually paying for the games. I'll never be convinced that piracy is an actual threat to making money. Piracy has never been easier, just see /c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com for proof, and yet pretty much all forms of entertainmment are as profitable as ever.
Then go away and live your life. Let the people who are angry and energized yell at companies to try and get better conditions for consumers.
Apparently Australia only got around to it last year, but they're requiring it to be implemented a lot faster.
You should probably be looking at trends over a longer period of time, rather than just a single month.
From here. There was a dip below the 2016-2019 average in January through March of 2023, but time marches on.
The numbers for 2023 are no higher than normal either
The numbers for 2023 in the 2-3 months you have data for. Look at the rest of the graph, how it starts off lower in January and is higher for the rest of the year. Go back up and look at this graph 
and see how covid comes in waves each year, not evenly distributed throughout. Then go back and look at this graph 
and see that based on the data we have in the US, deaths per year has stayed above the previous yearly patterns. We don't have all the data over a long period of time because covid hasn't been around for all that long. But from what we can see so far, it kills people. The exact number per year remains to be seen, but from the data we have it's been in the thousands, just in Norway.
Edit: I guess next time I see a fucking “mOVInG tHe GOOalPoSt!!!” I will take the clue and not fucking bother.
Half of the sources you posted actively worked against your own arguments. Maybe you shouldn't bother.
EDIT of my own: After looking at one of your sources (Eurostat)
you can see that January-March was lower than 2016-2019, but it's been on the rise again across the EU, and especially in Norway. Again, you can't just look at one single month and decide that it's representative of everything, everywhere, across all time going forward.
I read through some of your comment history and found this comment chain which I think is what you're referring to here.
Women love psychological manipulation and think they are the hot shit, until they start going “good guy”-less by their 30s and the “beauty” starts to subside. Too much high school teen garbage, and most have not mentally grown out of it.
Even if you say you don't hate women, it's pretty clear you don't like a certain kind of women, and don't make much of a distinction between them and everyone else.
True masculinity (said by certain kind of people to be toxic) is about resilience, emotional control, inner strength, confidence and the ability to withstand life’s hardships without resorting to insecurity (dissing manhood) or abusive behaviours (psychological manipulation).
We are getting tired of hearing we are toxic, disposable and physical tools for others. And I must tell you this – the devolving and rotting feminist movement is exactly what is causing the explosion of the other extreme end, redpillers. A lot of people are starting to disapprove of these extremes.
Men are not “toxic” because they are not as emotionally charged or like vulnerability. Men are simply hardwired to be more resilient, calm, less hysterical, and protect their emotional sanctity the exact way women protect their physical sanctity.
Wouldn't it be the truly masculine thing to do if you just didn't take all of the accusations of toxic masculinity to heart? Shouldn't be be using your calm, resilient, less hysterical intellect to try to understand just why so many people seem to have a problem with what you're saying or how you're saying it? Don't you want to have the ability to withstand life’s hardships without resorting to insecurity (worrying about perceived threats to men's rights) or abusive behaviours (assigning traits to a group for the actions of individuals)? I don't want to imply men aren't allowed to complain or have problems, but it seems you're either betraying your ideals for what a man should be, or are trying to hold all men to an unrealistic standard.
Lemmy (and leftist instances) as a leftist space is fine with ostracizing men’s rights because feminists maliciously club it with redpillers/incels.
As far as I can tell, this paragraph is about all the actual men's rights issues you're talking about:
All I have seen is double standards whenever men’s issues need to be talked about versus women’s issues. Mental health issues, women pedophiles/predators versus men pedophiles/predators, or male SA versus female SA, military recruitments, physical risk jobs like ones at construction sites, women publicly allowed to get away with sexual harassment or roadside flirting, or men being called creeps for being nice to children but women are “inclusive” and never creepy, et al. And any debate is intentionally and dishonestly avoided by women and feminists on these things by clustering men’s rights with redpill manosphere movement.
which is mostly about double standards, unless you just really want to interact with children, flirt with women in public, and not feel pressured to take certain jobs. Unless your idea of a leftist is someone like Bill Maher, I'm pretty sure most leftists would be pro-(mental) healthcare, pro- equality under the law, pro-union/workplace safety, anti-pedophilia, and generally anti-war.
If you like the concept of Upside Down, you might be interested in the anime movie Patema Inverted. It has the same premise and came out around the same time.
Harry’s whole life and the plot.
Oh, well you see, the bad things that happen to Harry are depicted as bad by the book, whereas the slavery of the house elves is depicted as a good thing, or at least how things should be. The characters don't just shrug off someone's death and say "they'd be happy to have died for the cause," but they do say "house elves are happy to work, so we shouldn't end their slavery." That's the problematic part, and what makes it worse and worth talking about.
No, you see that because it’s what you want to see. She’s nuts but not pro slavery, and I think thats obvious to most readers.
She's very pro- house elf slavery. I don't know how you're reading the book (or just the wiki page in this case) and coming to another conclusion. The person trying to free them is seen as ridiculous, every character besides her thinks she's a hopeless idealist who doesn't know how the world works for wanting to end slavery, and even the main character sides more with the "why is she so upset about this" side than "we should end slavery".
ltxrtquq
joined 2 years ago
What are the goalposts, so we all have the same frame of reference?