I have a hard time reading geography and culture type books. At the same time, I am embarrassed by how little understanding I have of Mexico, given the proximity. I need a gentle, 5th grade level introductory text that says things like, "This part is the part that's known for X, Y, and Z. Picture South Carolina but with more trumpets" or whatever. I'd really like a basic 5th grade literacy of the different regions of Mexico.
I realize this is super specific, but it seems like someone might know a publisher or series that does this kind of thing more generally, which would point me in the right direction.
Rebecca Solnit on age stratification:
I once heard Helena Norberg-Hodge, an economic analyst and linguist who studies the impact of globalization on nonindustrialized societies, say that generational segregation was one of the worst kinds of segregation in the United States. The remark made a lasting impression: that segregation was what I escaped all those years ago. My first friends were much older than I was, and then a little older; these days they are all ages. We think it's natural to sort children into single-year age cohorts and then process them like Fords on an assembly line, but that may be a reflection of the industrialization that long ago sent parents to work away from their children for several hours every day.
When you are a teenager, your peers judge you by exacting and narrow criteria. But those going through the same life experiences at the same time often have little to teach one another about life. Most of us are safer in our youth in mixed-age groups, and the more time we spend outside our age cohort, the broader our sense of self. It's not just that adults and children are good for adolescents. The reverse is also true. The freshness, inquisitiveness, and fierce idealism of a wide-awake teenager can be exhilarating, just as the stony apathy of a shut-down teenager can be dismal.
When I was first placed in a job where 25-75 year olds were now my peers, I used to have conversations about this with my college friends. One of the things we concluded was that there was a mind-boggling number of ways for someone to be so fucking weird, and that the axes for weirdness were totally orthogonal to any sort of college-scale for weirdness. Like someone can seem the model of conformity according to a young adult's vision of adulthood, and then surprise you by being the weirdest bizarre-nut in ways you can't even classify.
(Now I am far less often categorically surprised, but also now I've spent decades among age-diverse environments.)
(This whole pull-quote is stolen by from a friend who does not read this blog, but I feel I ought to hat-tip anyway.)
We've talked before about how there's some evidence that stopping short of a full course of antibiotics doesn't necessarily have anything to do with antibiotic resistance. (And also how the animal/farming use of antibiotics completely swamps the individual illness use in promoting resistant bugs.)
So I have a separate question, and I don't want the two issues to get mixed up. For this question, let's take it on faith that it's always good to take the full course of antibiotics. My question is on the length of a full course.
We took Rascal in for an ear infection last Friday. It was still pretty mild and not bothering him too much, but we were about to go camping and we didn't want it to rapidly escalate while we were in the middle of the woods. The doctor used Rascal's weight to determine the dosage. The length is set (as always) at ten days.
It seems scientifically counterintuitive that you'd need the same duration of treatment for a mild, early infection as you would for a raging, oozing, untreated infection of the exact same kind. I'm guessing the lack of differentiation in treatment length is grounded in historical precedent and not actual science.
In a similar vein to how online learning algorithms quickly learn to be racist: 'My AI Is Sexually Harassing Me': Replika Users Say the Chatbot Has Gotten Way Too Horny
I am following this local story very closely. Basically Joshua Wright is an inmate getting treated at the hospital. He went to the bathroom in leg shackles, made a break for it, and the corrections officer killed him, in the hospital. The officer shot Wright six times. They are refusing to release bodycam footage until the Texas Rangers have concluded their investigation. And there are details like this:
Charley Wilkison, executive director of the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas, said in a tweet last month that Wright had grabbed sharp medical instruments and began running toward hospital staff and civilians when the officer shot him. He then deleted his tweet the next day, retweeting a nearly identical statement but changing "grabbed" to "moved toward."
I just can't get past the part where he's unarmed and wearing leg shackles, and then gets shot six times.
This is intended to be our system for checking in on imaginary friends, so that we know whether or not to be concerned if you go offline for a while. There is no way it could function as that sentence implies, but it's still nice to have a thread.
Episode Kobe forty-nine