In my eyes, the two biggest problems are teaching competence and socialization. It’s possible for a parent to adequately cover a wide range of subjects if they’re quite intelligent themselves and they have good materials, but school teachers specialize in a few subjects and have plenty of experience teaching. Sure, a parent might have specific issues with parts of a curriculum, or think it isn’t suitable for their child’s intelligence, but that can be covered with spot checks and home study.

The bigger problem seems to be socialization. Sure, there are meetups and extracurriculars, but I don’t think that can really replace being around dozens or hundreds of students your own age, navigating social situations shoulder-to-shoulder with your peers. These are critical skills, arguably more important than the bulk of the actual school curriculum, and it’s much more difficult to build them later. We are social creatures, and we learn best through immersion. Like you, most of the homeschooled kids I knew were socially awkward.

I think much better than homeschooling is supplementing schoolwork with individualized study.

Yes, three dimensionally. Pull it up, and make a fold from the sewn point of the fitted corner parallel to one folded edge, and then the other edge likewise parallel to the remaining side. Now that you have a nice rectangle, lay the bunched portion down as flat as you can, and continue folding. Ta-dah.

If you pull up the fitted part, you can establish parallel sides so you can form it into a rectangle that can be folded neatly

Do adults really not know how to find fitted sheets? You fold it basically like a regular sheet, but tuck the corners inside each other.

Bepis

Thanks, I haven’t touched DiffEqs properly for a while

You couldn’t wait 4 days?

Serious and boring answer: Calculus probably

Less serious, more interesting answer: Memes 101

A cross section of sociology and semiotics, chronicling and deconstructing the fascinating rise of modern memes as a living form of communication. I think there’s enough meat there to warrant serious scholarly analysis. Most of the students would sign up thinking it’s an easy joke class, and get tricked into learning about how ideas evolve.

Same. Systems dynamics, mathematics, physics and metaphysics, etc. If people have tried to devise a system to explain everything, I’m interested in looking it over. I gotta know at least the basics of basically everything.

Thanks, I just got this out of my head

I don’t have any further context, but he’s got a point.

Sure, physical jobs are physically demanding and the monotony can be taxing. Even customer service jobs are mentally and emotionally taxing, but at the end of the day you’re just a rando in a uniform. You’re selling your skills and labor, you can be yourself off the clock.

Streaming is selling your personality, your perspectives, your values. With lots of viewers, you’re exposing yourself to criticism for every opinion you express. You basically live every day with your identity under the microscope of thousands of anonymous critics. Either you deal with constant character attacks, or you commodify your personality until it’s basically unrecognizable.

“Real jobs” don’t really attack your soul in the same way, because your soul isn’t the product. Aside from certain kinds of celebrities that are basically streamers anyway, it is a pretty unique struggle. At least actors are portraying characters, and can separate themselves from their roles. Streamers are the roles. The line between self and curated content is pretty heavily blurred, it really is a singular kind of soul-sucking.

I started because I used to follow a 28-hour day and would wake up at 6:30, look out the window, and wonder “Which 6:30 though?”

Ch-ch-ch-chia?

Yup, once I figured out I could tag users I started doing that instead. Much better to be prepared than to just choose blindness.

Generally I’m a bit more specific though.

Did you misinterpret Starship Troopers to be straight endorsement of militant fascism?

yes!

There’s your problem. Just because an author writes a book with a world building premise does not mean they fully endorse the world created. In Stranger in a Strange Land, which came out less than two years later, the main character creates a free love hippie movement. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, a few years later, is about a revolution against authoritarian oppression.

If a person names as his three favorites of my books Stranger, Harsh Mistress, and Starship Troopers … then I believe that he has grokked what I meant. But if he likes one—but not the other two—I am certain that he has misunderstood me, he has picked out points—and misunderstood what he picked. If he picks 2 of 3, then there is hope, 1 of 3—no hope. All three books are on one subject: Freedom and Self-Responsibility.

Heinlein wrote thought experiments. He wrote about the relationship between people and the society they live in. To that end, he wrote about a number of different kinds of society, and how people related to them. Insofar as you could ascribe any particular political ideology to him based on his writings, he was broadly anti-authoritarian. Nothing remotely close to a Nazi.

Uh, curious where you got that from, especially since I don’t see how you can be both a Nazi and a libertarian. Did you misinterpret Starship Troopers to be straight endorsement of militant fascism?

You should read Job: A Comedy of Justice by Robert Heinlein. This is basically the main theme

I wouldn’t pre-count, but I cannot conceive of a world where I wouldn’t be adjusting the ratios for the last few slices once the discrepancy was obvious.

It was written for the nobles who were made military leadership.

I had an on-again-off-again thing with an AFAB person who identified as non-binary for the latter part of that time. Still had a vagina, still enjoyed PIV, still had a body I found attractive, so whatever. Only real difficulty was cutting gendered language out of dirty talk, especially with them being a sub.

Admittedly, I’m kind of a gender-abolitionist anyway. Biological sex I get, I like putting my penis in a vagina. Body-type aesthetic preferences I get, but those are pretty individual in the first place: some people like tits, some like ass, some like skinny, some like thick, some like short, some like tall; there are plenty of women I don’t find attractive but others do, and vice versa. But outside that, gender just seems socially regressive. So long as I am sexually attracted to you and you like having sex roughly the same way I do, the rest is just personality.

I’m sincerely not sure how social gender would affect my relationship.