Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, BMW, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Hugo Boss, Bayer, American Jim Crow laws, Associated Press, Chase Bank, Fanta (Coke product), Krupp (ThyssenKrupp)...

Tartans weren't associated with specific clans until the 1800s. They were just basic cloths that sometimes had an interesting weave. Early tartans often didn't even have a color pattern to them.

"Plaids" just means blanket, and describes an old garment style where you drape the blanket of cloth across the body (now often called a "great kilt"). Even those didn't often have any special color variations, just a very workmanlike clothing style.

This is like that Rage Against the Machine moment all over again.

"What did you think they were raising those fists against?"

I don't think people (especially archeologists) believe people were dumber. Just that they were working with less of an information base than modern humans. Technology is a steady build-up on top of previous construction, not completely new structures.

It should be noted that the comment about them being "more technologically advanced than we thought" is on a sliding scale here. They're saying that certain techniques are used in it that they didn't think they had till a little later, not that they were leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else technologically or using integrated circuits or something.

A "Thing" is a type of germanic/viking governing assembly.

Yes, but that's so basic a statement as to have no bearing on the conversation.

In this case the conversation is about how in education you often aren't doing the process with the end-goal of learning the process. You don't write a paper because the end goal is to teach you to write the best papers (aka, teaching a process to learn the process), you're doing it because it develops additional skills like critical thinking and communication (aka, teaching a process to learn a skill). The same way you don't run on a treadmill to get really good at running on treadmills.

In particular it's about which skills you're learning while doing the process.

I've given examples, and you're just ignoring them to pretend I'm being absurd.

The process of writing a paper improves your reading comprehension, written communication skills, and critical thinking. However, you're not writing the paper to get better at the process of writing papers. You're writing it to practice those ancillary skills and show to the teacher that you can do it. It's those skills that are the purpose of writing the paper, not the process of writing a paper.

The paper isn't the point, it's the test to see if you've gotten the important parts of the lesson. No more than the ability to answer multiple choice questions is the point of math tests.

You aren't learning these things because they're the most important things to being an adult, but because in learning them you learn and practice ancillary skills that are important to being a functioning member of society.

You don't learn the process because knowing the process is the most important thing you take away from the course. You learn the process because it affects how you learn and interact with the world. You can, and many will, forget the substance of the course, but the longest lasting effect will be the method of learning.

You're just appending the word process to class titles and expecting it to disprove me on it's own. It doesn't.

You don't learn history because knowing the dates when things happened is really important, and you don't learn math because you're going to have to do equations when you're an adult. You learn those subjects because they affect how you learn and think about the world.

>Most schools don’t even have debate class. Some high schools have a debate club.

The reason they don't have it has nothing to do with time, or a lack of AI.

They don't use the Socratic Method because each class has 20 or more students to 1 teacher. It has nothing to do with the amount of time they spend writing papers. You're trying to find a reason why AI would be great for education and coming up with some really odd conclusions.

>Then you’re teaching kids how to bullshit and aren’t instilling actually important lessons… just because we don’t like AI?

I love AI, but that doesn't mean you need to apply it to everything or that it's suitable for everything.

When you start learning how to do things, it's better to learn the hard way first, then learn the easier methods. Because the knowledge you get from learning the fundamentals gives you a better grasp of what the easier method is trying to accomplish.

What you're describing is a debate class. Those already exist, and will absolutely teach you how to bullshit way more than any other course.

>Why do teachers only have students write one side of a persuasive essay instead of both 99% of the time? Because of the time and effort required to produce just one. But now even deeper levels of critical thinking are possible.

They only wrote one side because the point isn't to debate the subject. The subject completely doesn't matter. The purpose is for the person to formulate and put down their ideas. The paper at the end is just to show the teacher that they understand. The paper is not the purpose of the process, it's just a measurement.

Teachers don't spend time having kids write both sides because the sides are immaterial to the purpose. It's why they have you write many papers on many subjects instead. Because the purpose isn't to actually determine which sandwich is best for all time, it's to determine if the student can come up with a reasonable argument and express it in their own words.

>“In your own words” is practically pointless if your words are wrong or lacking detail.

That's why you do it. It's practice. At no point is the purpose of a class to determine the correct answer through writing essays.

> quality communication as an adult is the goal, then the adults who are use AI will be able to do it faster and better than ones that don’t.

No they won't. That's just teaching them how to get a computer to do the thinking for them, not challenging them to do the thinking themselves.

Let's make this clear.

Writing an essay is not about entertaining the teacher or making the best essay. The essay is a test not the purpose of the lesson. The test is to see if you, in your own words, can formulate arguments and correctly identify concepts from a lesson.

Writing a prompt for ChatGPT may produce a better written essay, but it's completely sidestepping formulating your own thoughts and putting them in your own words. If you do that, you aren't learning or practicing your mental skills, you're just learning how to write a better paper.

The skills you learn by you writing a paper yourself go beyond the ability to write a paper. Creating a prompt and just letting an AI write for you is only teaching you how to write prompts.

You're not writing essays to teach people the wonders of the technology of the pencil, you’re writing essays to show you can think critically and express that reasonably in your own words.

Teaching them to make prompts is teaching them the technology not mentally developing their reasoning and comprehension.

That doesn't actually accomplish any of the goals of education. The purpose is to mentally enrich the student, not teach them a process.

Seeing a lot of people completely misunderstanding the purpose of education.

You aren't learning to write papers to get better at writing papers. You're learning to write papers because it develops you're communication skills, your critical thinking, and your reading comprehension.

The same way treadmills and weights don't exist purely to make you better at running or lifting weights.

You do the difficult task to make yourself better able to handle the easier ones. You also develop a wider range of skills while doing it manually.

Frankly we need to be more upfront with what education is for. It doesn't matter if you're never going to need to write an English essay as an adult, you're going to have to develop your arguments and read as an adult. You're just doing it on paper so the teacher can evaluate your learning, not because the paper is the end goal.

Because writing essays is also about learning how to express your points and get your ideas onto paper. It's also a test of reading comprehension and logic.

Particularly in early education, you're never learning something just to learn how to do that thing. You're learning something to develop your skills in doing a wide range of other things.

Even later on, when you're citing sources for college papers the idea isn't to teach you how to write academic papers better, it's teaching you how to do your own research.

And then the customer was a robot.

And the customer will demand to speak to a live human.

No? Because I don't need my computer to be an AI?

They're not even that far away. When they marched on Greece the Achaemenids (Persians) marched from Babylon just north of Ur to Greece.

It's string and fluff from the wheel. Wheels always loose a bit of lint and string during a job.

This looks like "barn board". Aged wood, or wood made to appear aged, then sold for the aesthetic look of old wood.

When scientists discovered a metal that could be derrived from the roman alumin recipes, they called it Aluminium.

Found a metal in Magnesia? Call it Magnesium.

In California? Call it Californium.

The element is Blue-gray? Call it Blue-grayium. But make it fancy and use the Latin term for Blue-gray, 'Caesius'. Caesium or cesium.