I empathize with this. I went to one of those “top tier” universities and had a handful of classes where I regretted being one of the few (fewer than 10) goody good students who attended lecture, and subsequently fell asleep anyway. Over time, I realized that universities like these primarily prioritize faculty who can attract grant dollars over those who are excellent teachers.
But that said, I don’t believe this author is complaining that students generally don’t attend lecture. They’re complaining that absenteeism has increased, implying that it has increased substantially recently. And that this sudden increase in the delta is a cause for concern.
>But that said, I don’t believe this author is complaining that students generally don’t attend lecture. They’re complaining that absenteeism has increased, implying that it has increased substantially recently. And that this sudden increase in the delta is a cause for concern.
From experience on the professor's side, the problem isn't the brilliant students who show up to one class and ace the exam like everyone in here seems to have been. The problem is the students who miss most lectures and get 50% or lower because they (and, increasingly, most students these days) don't actually understand how to study from a textbook.
Long ago CUNY had a low admission bar and a high graduation bar. This meant, of course, that many students dropped out. In your case, students choose to pay tuition and not do the work. What is the external pressure on you or the dean or university to make things easier for these people? I think there should be a reverse feeder school idea: enroll in a university where standards are high, if you do poorly then transfer to a community college. That way a degree from that university is a signal for quality.
>What is the external pressure on you or the dean or university to make things easier for these people?
Mostly that students are all giant piggybanks that spit out tuition every year. And, from experience, a lot of administrators view themselves as doing a service for marginalized students (who are often more likely to come in ill prepared and wash out like this). They are generally old and paternalistic (and sometimes a bit racist) and often just assume that all such students need lowered standards rather than what they actually need (a kick in the pants and plenty of resources to help them get their shit together).
I only recently switched off the catch-all email configuration. Until then, I did what you did. But over the years, I got an increasingly annoying amount of misdirected email (possibly legitimate business, marketing, and spam) sent to all sorts of usernames, and only landing in my inbox because of the catch-all.
I now just generate masked email addresses with Fastmail. Much less noise now.
I’m visiting Vietnam for Tet, and one cultural quirk of theirs that I’ve learned is that $2 bills are considered lucky money. So much so that kids there will hold onto those $2 bills as keepsakes (though they could spend them). And thus I made my first ever trip to the bank to special order a bunch of $2s.
Something I wonder is if an uncut sheet of $2 bills would be considered extraordinarily lucky, because it’s a bunch of $2s in nearly mint condition. Or if it would be considered incredibly unlucky because those kids would have no easy way of cutting them perfectly.
I was one of the fools who installed the iOS 7 beta onto a phone that I depended on with Google Authenticator. The app had a compatibility issue with that beta release that caused it to disappear all my 2FA seeds except, very fortunately, for my Gmail. There was a bit of a ruckus about this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6112077.
Since then, I always use at least two 2FA apps at the same time.
My solution to this attack is to generate random words (what 1Password calls a "memorable password") instead of something totally inscrutable. Most security question fields are long enough to accept 4 words (occasionally 5). I think it should be much harder to convince a customer support agent with "it's just 4 random words from the dictionary" vs "it's 32 random characters, do you really want me to go through it all?".
(I'm sure a determined enough attacker will eventually find an agent willing to accept the former excuse, but if it reaches that point, I think I've already lost this battle.)
I guess the better solution is to make the answers different for each site, and plausible (i.e. childhood street is an actual street name somewhere), but False. Then saving these in your password manager. Given there are typically a few questions in the mix, each answer not having a huge amount of entropy doesn't matter as much.
I think you missed the Excel spreadsheet in the parent's link. Chase (under JPMORGAN CHASE BANK) and Wells Fargo are on that list.
Interestingly, the other 2 big banks—Citigroup and Bank of America—are missing. They both do support RTP though (which apparently is a different network operated by the same entity that backs ACH). Unsure if RTP is meant to compete with FedNow.
You poke fun at it, but great irony is that a lot of knowledgeable coffee people started poking at all the techniques recently and we've learned that almost everything towards the showy complicated side of it are completely not worth thinking about or will have worse results. Osmotic pouring looks neat but will underextract anything that isn't dark. 4:6 is still questionable over most simpler 1-2 pour techniques. That showy thing of raising the kettle up and down a lot also will underextract.
Light roasts are great! But there are just a lot of straight-up bad renditions of them, as a result of lack of adequate training on either roasting or brewing, to the consternation of many of those coffee snobs. Unfortunately, this just happens when shops follow trends.
Roasting well in general is already quite challenging and is a lot more than just arriving at a certain bean color or temperature. Vegetal flavors are very much a roasting mistake that's being passed off as an inherent characteristic of a light roast. Combine that with techniques better suited to brewing (or pulling shots of) darker roasted, and you have a recipe for a dull, astringent, sour cup.
That being said, a sour espresso shot is always possible regardless of dark the coffee is, so I'd argue it has a lot to do with a cafe owner's willingness to train themselves and their staff to work with lighter roasted coffee.
What are the variables that a roaster can tweak? Temperature, time, and lots of others I assume? Which variable can produce vegetal flavors? I’d never thought much about roasting but now I’m curious!
5 mins or under and it’s scorched, 10 mins or over and it’s baked. I want in the middle.
Too dark and oily and it’s not great. Too light and I miss the bitterness and it tastes weak. I need to stir it a lot or the roast is uneven. I spray water on it at the end to arrest the roasting.
This is something that I still consider to be black magic to me, so this is my best attempt at describing a number of the variables.
Temperature is controlled in two ways: direct heat input (e.g. gas flame heating the outside of the rotating drum) and air flow (moving air through the roasting drum to the exhaust). It's not 1 measurement though: there is bean temperature (measured by a probe stuck into the pile of beans) and air temperature.
As far as time goes, when keeping the end temperature equal, spending more time in the roasting process means that the difference between interior and exterior of the bean are closer in temperature. When you plot air and bean temperature against time, you can derive additional information: how much energy is in your roasting drum and the rate at which the bean temperature is changing.
I'm going to preface this by saying that this is an ongoing field of research. We're still learning about what is happening in a coffee bean at various stages of the roasting process. For example, we're not quite certain exactly what is happening at "first crack" (the first time you can start to hear the beans popping), or why some coffee beans simply don't have as audible of a first crack.
We can attribute the first "rules" established for consistent coffee roasting to Scott Rao, who published some of his observations in a book in the early 2010s. Some of those rules were: (1) ensure that the rate of change of the bean temperature ("rate of rise") is constantly decreasing, and (2) prepare to adjust your roast as you begin first crack to prevent the "crash and flick" (a sharp decrease followed by a sharp increase in the rate of rise). The current thinking is that the release of moisture during first crack causes the temperature to crash, and the removal of that moisture causes the temperature to uncontrollably rise back up again. Not handling this properly often results in undesirable hollow and bready flavors; this is frequently referred to as "baked coffee".
As far as vegetal goes, that is often because of roasters cutting their roasts too short (and perhaps roasting too quickly). In this case, the bean does not get hot enough for sufficient flavor development, so it more or less retains a lot of the undesirable flavors of essentially "raw" coffee.
Note that these are "rules" instead of rules because there are a plethora of edge cases out there.
This is why roasting is really really difficult. And why even some of the best roasters out there end up leaning a lot on blends and their milk drink business.
And sorry, I gotta call out everyone who suggests this: most of your home-roasted coffee is gonna taste like ass lol. I tried home roasting a bit with a fancy setup and with a Fresh Roast. I sure saved a lot of money per pound of coffee, but I always got a fraction of the quality and the flavors were never consistent. But what I gained was insanity and the realization that home-roasting isn't for me.
Thank you for the detailed answer! It makes sense that the vegetal flavors are the raw flavors from the beans themselves. And that temperature is much more complicated than it appears. I also appreciate the Scott Rao pointer, perhaps that will be interesting future reading.
This is a bit tangential to the topic, but shareholder voting is interesting enough anyway.
* Musk will vote, for obvious reasons.
* Big institutional funds almost always vote with the board of directors recommendations. They very rarely rock the boat for a lot of mostly good reasons.
* Private shareholders with a sizable stake likely will vote.
* Retail shareholders (i.e. you and I) are notorious for not voting. Case in point: AMC is mostly held by retail investors at this point and had to go through all sorts of shenanigans to be able to increase the maximum number of shares they could issue, because that typically requires a shareholder vote that simply wouldn't ever get enough total votes to pass.
Institutional holders tend to vote along the direction recommended by ISS or Glass-Lewis.
Those recommendations do generally follow Board recommendations on strategic topics, but frequently diverge from the board on matters of employee and executive pay (approving increases to share/option pools, etc.)
Ah, you're right! I'm now remembering that Vanguard mentions something like this for their default voting methodology, among the few choices they now allow investors to choose from.
I receive emails from Schwab and it seems very straightforward -- there is a personalized link sent to your email, you click it and start to vote. It shows how many shares your have, what the questions are along with the board's recommendations are. No login. Probably not the most secure process but very easy and smooth
Robinhood is a brokerage, and should be passing proxy ballots through to you for companies you hold shares in.
It's arguable whether Vanguard should allow this, and whether it'd matter at the end. Vanguard is for retail investors who want to invest their money as cheaply as possible without thinking hard about it. Delivering proxy ballots, even electronically, does have a cost, and would likely make such funds slightly but noticeably more expensive. And to what benefit? After all, most retail investors don't care to vote. If you strongly care about your shareholder voice, the better solution is to buy shares in the company directly.
That said, Vanguard now lets you select from some broader voting methodologies (e.g. Vanguard's default, ESG, or "good corporate governance"). But nothing specific like "good corporate governance, except screw Musk over/always favor Musk".
Vanguard supports accounts that holds mutual funds (most of their focus/business) but also has accounts that can hold individual stocks.
In the individual stock case, Vanguard absolutely has to allow those share owners to vote their shares.
In the mutual fund case, Vanguard is the investor in the shares and Vanguard is the one who should cast the vote for those shares. End investors are invested in the mutual fund, and so could vote on mutual fund proxies, but IMO, should not be permitted to vote on the underlying shares that the mutual fund is invested in.
Vanguard lets you vote if you own individual shares. Vanguard owns the underlying shares for my units of VTI, so they get the votes. I absolutely do not want to vote on every individual stock in VTI.
But that said, I don’t believe this author is complaining that students generally don’t attend lecture. They’re complaining that absenteeism has increased, implying that it has increased substantially recently. And that this sudden increase in the delta is a cause for concern.