You're talking about 3-cueing, and we're moving away from it. The whole idea was that you could teach reading by just doing it, and people would pick up tricks as they went. It's a horrible idea through and through.

I heard about Sold a Story but haven't listened yet. Would be interesting.

What I can tell you as an educator is that math skills are fairly okay, like they've always been, but reading has taken a huge dive. There are some kids who'll read above grade level but I'm seeing more kids with fluency and no comprehension. They don't know what they're reading despite reading it so well, you'd think they'd seen it before. I'm encountering that more and more, and it's supposed to be rarer than this.

You can also take a glimpse (well, I can) at IEPs for a whole class and notice that ELA/Written Expression/Whatever have insane goals and objectives. A lot of it comes down to kids simply not reading when at home. They hate reading. I think they'd rather get bamboo torture than read, sometimes, and it's very odd.

It isn't. English in particular requires a heavy focus on phonics and for a bit longer, given that English has 44 sounds and letter combinations that either completely change or don't match ("c" as an /s/ sound) or come together like any other digraph.

That headline is deliberately misleading as Maria Healey isn’t an owner.

The law only affects what the law affects, and it comes down to gender identity. If the law isn't about that, then yes, they can bar you for that reason. It doesn't make that much sense, but that's what tends to happen when you push the law in certain directions for a while anyway.

The marvelous technology of recording a voice, that's been around for a fairly long time. This issue is being overly complicated when it's simple. Just have someone voice the announcements so it's more human. It isn't difficult. That they're replacing it without word (on my end) that he wants to step down is a different but related topic.

The semantics of futureproof are very important. "Semantics" isn't a cliché to wave away a topic.

>A new T line in 2022 can use the same voice as the current ones and also potential new developments in 2040.

Why are you invested in this so strongly? This is very odd. It's like you're anxious about solving a problem that doesn't need solving.

>benefits of improvements.

This is a benefit to some bottom line, not a benefit to the service. And having someone do the voices isn't that big a deal. I'm certainly skeptical of technology is a healthy way; it has to prove useful. In this case, it proves useful to management, not designers. Or anyone, really. I have a feeling you jump way too quickly into the idea that any technological improvement is some universal good.

It's not a problem that someone may leave, or that they may die. That's life. It isn't a problem to be solver.

If you think automated things are futureproof, I don't know what to tell you. The idea of being "futureproof" is only introduced by technology itself. It's futureproof until the license runs out, or something else happens behind the scene. Why the same person voicing everything wouldn't be consistent is beyond make; makes me think you're not really looking at this from a real point of view and are tossing out clichés that come with discussions about technology.

This is a lot of mental legwork to avoid the idea that they could just hire someone else when he's done-done. They could also have several people voicing them. It isn't hard to just have someone voice all the new stops as they're created.

How could it backfire? And wouldn't it by now? You're defending cost-cutting measures that just make the world a bit more sterile, and it's not like it's expensive to really record a person's voice.

Maybe it's because I've played since I was really young, but I don't think there's anything as "Irish fiddle music" in such a distinct sense. It's really fast and imposing at first, but you realize that it's fairly easy to play if you just stick with it. But it's sort of like getting good at certain composers' material. You don't study Bach specifically, unless you're at a really high level. Even then, that's just to give a select few players something to do.

If you haven't played violin before, then any basic lessons will do for a time. You wouldn't learn anything differently, I wouldn't think - unless some fiddle player completely shuns written music or something. And I'm guessing they don't care about form, but you should early on. Fiddle players hunch like no other, but they kind of earned it by playing for a while and deciding it works.

I'm not sure I know what you mean. This is what democracy is - you get to vote on things that affect everyone as a whole. You get to do it at the local, town level and at the state level. You don't have to worry about "their" land since it doesn't make sense to vote on personal property. In this case, we'd probably be talking about making all property that of the state's, or closer to it; putting control of these issues in a small group so that decisions can be made more easily.

It's probably hard to take me seriously because that wasn't a conversation with you or for you, but internet forums trigger something in your brain to make you feel like you're in the thick of it.

>start advocating for policies that might actually help them.

Literally what I'm doing. You keep going on about how things should be while we can see things slide more and more where you don't want them to be.

When I said that food isn't a worthy cause, I meant from the people in the receiving country who sit back and sell a fringe benefit that's totally unrelated to helping people. That's fairly obvious.

I'd like to believe what you believe but that ship sailed from New England. There are few local staples that people enjoy so thoroughly outside maybe seafood, and even then, that's divisive. Most Americans don't have any real staple that's cultural here. The food people "bring" is made from ingredients shipped world-wide, not local ones, and a lot of it in restaurants is fairly bad for you.

There are far too many people here who are reading something like "don the mantle of the older and wiser" when I'm chiming in with what I've reflected on and nothing more. It's very bizarre, and I feel bad for a lot of people. Maybe there's something about internet comments that cuts right into people. I don't know. I'm not giving any "wise" statement like that. Your comment doesn't sound rude, it sounds kind of sad and misguided.

More to the point, this is a fundamental problem with government getting involved but not totally, and only in some areas. They aren't going to move there but that's a problem to overcome. If not, we'll keep getting the situation we have now where apparently these labs can be funded by intricate laws about money that protect them but we can't get the work to places that could use it.

On one hand, people in the suburbs (where I don't live) do. They have what our society considers a god-given right to vote, to democracy, to their land, and so on. It's very strange to say they don't. It's also odd because there's some sort of inference to be made about what right Boston or the region has to other people's land.

On the other hand, I'm not invoking any of that. I think you're having a conversation that you've had before with someone whom you haven't met and isn't having that. I simply recognize where we are and am trying to build a real path out, instead of bitterly whinging.

The only thing every post of yours has reveled is how intimidated you are by someone giving a fairly thoughtful view, written at a seventh grade level. I never said I was intelligent and I don't value that as a trait or characteristic, if you were to ask.

You need to calm down.

I think you’re revealing that you think that’s happening, but you’re commenting on commenting without adding anything. Ironic, and sad - again, seventh grade.

>Everyone thinks their little suburb is special and precious, and ordained by god.

You're going through something, and that's fine. But people are allowed to like their town without thinking it can only increase in importance if it becomes a part of something bigger that is already established.

The fact you think I'm a NIMBY is precisely what's throwing you off. I'm for more housing. I'd love that housing here. I can just look around at what's being built, how badly it's built, and how horribly it affects the areas around us to know that it isn't working. Your approach isn't working. We're basically trying it now, whenever a massive complex goes up.

>There’s high demand to live in this state. The state needs to build more higher-density housing, INCLUDING in suburbs.

Sounds like you think government exists to cater to people's needs in some sort of consumerist manner. I feel really bad for you. Especially when the demand to live in the area comes from the historic ignoring of other parts of the state. Real estate is far cheaper and abundant farther West. But sure, build up some of the densest towns in the entire country again.

You keep bringing up topics in some rapid-fire manner and asking why I don't get something, when you might be having a hard time explaining what you mean. I do understand this. I just don't have the bland approach that you do that clearly isn't working at all.

I never said we should keep bureaucracy around. I can't stand it. At this point, you're arguing something I haven't said like I'm someone else, but showing that the real thing you value is dirt-cheap housing, when valuations in housing have primarily been hurt by financialization. Housing might have to get a bit more expensive at first. That's true of anything new that you start building. We need to build it back up again though.

In no way am I close to asking that, and as big an interested fan of degrowth as I can be at this phase, it's barely talking about that.

From the pictures I remember seeing, it's another example of Americans building housing that looks like a dormitory of their dreams from college. The kind that we still render oddly poorly during the pitch phase, and looks completely soulless. But I'm sure it's slightly more "efficient" by presuming that no business in the area will be affected by it and everything will remain LOL.

Boston's had this scene for a long while, compared to other places, and compared to times when it might have been mainly government driving research at various places. This is still an issue that highlights exactly how people really think, where Boston, or the government, or whoever, shouldn't lift a finger to affect the market of biotech. We can and we should, since it would benefit everyone. The main reason biotech has been surging is due to private money backing it. Take that away, as we should by curtailing that kind of investing, and it would go away.

So tiring listening to these barely-middle-of-the-road politics from people who really only react to media, not politics, talk about how the world should be. They're trying to shape it into EPCOT at everyone's expense. And it's just lazy. They've convinced themselves that they're doing God's work humanitarians' work by just letting people show up, when people showing up at your doorstep happens after a long line of failure. But it's easier to do nothing, and spin that as a good deed, than do real work.

>you're flailing hard here.

You can plug in text to online readers and they'll gauge it, however accurately, across a lot of different tests. In this case, what I wrote is equivalent to what a seventh grader or ninth grader is expected to handle.

I'd be way more careful going forward about admitting that seventh grade texts make you so scared that you're ironically dropping words like verbosity lmao.

Thank you for replying only in clichés that add nothing and obscure any real thought you have lmao. You'll bump that second language reading comprehension up to middle school one of these days.

Who's the oldest person who ever lived and what's the oldest rivalry? You haven't answered these questions, but you have made this into a thing for yourself. Let's see you see it to the end.