I think OP is arguing that because they literally said "The Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people and we’re going to continue to get absurd unrepresentative outcomes for as long as it remains a relevant body."
Right, but that's explicitly not the body of government meant to represent people. So is he saying the Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 100 states, or is he saying the House is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people?
> Right, but that's explicitly not the body of government meant to represent people.
I haven't claimed that the Senate was intended to represent the people. I also haven't claimed that OP claimed that the Senate was intended to represent the people.
> So is he saying the Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 100 states, or is he saying the House is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people?
He didn't say either of those things. He said this "The Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people."
I know that's what he typed, I'm asking what he meant. The Senate does not represent 350 million people. It has never represented people. It was never meant to represent people. Of course it's a ridiculous way of representing people, in the same way that a hammer is a ridiculous tool for heating something up. It's a completely nonsensical statement.
We sure do, Sweden imports trash (actual trash, not recycling) because it's a huge part of their energy source.
A large amount of plastic recycling is burned, but always in secret, because when people find out they freak out, because they mistakenly think that making some new plastic out of it is somehow better.
Suppose there are two distinct entities, each such that if it is learned about, then it kills the learner, call them Geigh and Ritaar. What happens when Geigh learns about Ritaar?
How are college endowments similar to hedge funds?
For one, they put money into hedge funds as investors. And broadly, they're long on illiquid investments but have short term obligations for salaries, pensions etc. That's a hedge fund with a slightly different time horizon and intent.
Some of those short term obligations are covered thru grants, fed money. But when that dries up (eg, Harvard and Trump), you're squeezed.
> In order to not have to explain everything, almost all lessons are mostly teaching you some axioms, even if they really are disputed, or have caveats, etc. Good teachers make clear where there is an axiom, and where something is just being simplified or assumed for the sake of saving time.
What exactly do you mean by the word “axiom” here?
Think of it as one layer of abstraction above the model under discussion. Like a hyperparameter. In later years, students get taught the same topics again, with the hyperparameter tuned to be more realistic.
Okay. So, in your original comment are you asserting that teachers are mostly telling students to believe propositions without giving any epistemic justification for those propositions?
Yes, as part of teaching one topic, teachers have to tell students to "not worry about" some other related topic and just take it as given fact, even when that's not technically true
To me, disrespecting you is any behaviour which _I_ find disrespectful. If I was mistaken, I'd apologize. I can't control how you feel, burrows, I can only control what I say.
(Premise 1) If a country has 350 million people, then the Senate will produce unrepresentative outcomes.
(Premise 2) America has 350 million people.
(Conclusion 1) So, the Senate will produce unrepresentative outcomes in America.
(Conclusion 2) So, the Senate is bad for America.