There is something very internet-native about Franklin having a collection of handles for different kinds of posting

Franklin was a world class troll, a man ahead of his time in many ways.

Building businesses that supported entire local economies is a different kind of legacy

She transcended the genre entirely

What a life. Dolly somehow managed to be enormously famous without ever seeming consumed by fame. RIP.

I would have loved that kind of biology game, particularly if failed designs were part of the lesson

You should try Thrive - https://www.revolutionarygamesstudio.com/

It's a open-source clone of Spore that aims to be more scientifically accurate. Right now you can play as microbes and very simple multicellular organisms.

The unexpected conclusion here seems to be that biology taught you enough statistics to leave biology financially behind. That is interesting, although six profitable years of gambling may also encourage a rather romantic view of gambling

How you prevent meaning from becoming another thing adults manufacture for students

We already do, collectively! That's culture. And I think it is okay to demonstrate what we value because that's how we pass on interests. But this works when we also allow for the agency and autonomy to explore and pick. Culture exposes me to many different genres of art. I don't have to like all of them. The dangers are in trying to start with a defined, standardized curriculum and then manufacture meaning (fractions are a fantastic example) This is exactly where agency and autonomy matter. If school is all about carefully titrating monitoring learning on allowed paths, then we basically create bubbles where so much meaning is already disallowed. And yes, in these situations we will try to manufacture meaning. Adults manufacturing meaning is an interesting endeavour and I am not sure how and where it works. But it does, the military, cults, radical ideologies. Still processing what we learn from that!

Avery's experiment is memorable not because "DNA carries heredity" is an important fact but because protein looked like the plausible answer and a relatively simple experiment overturned it...

Answer: differently and increasingly

I get the ad-like vibe, but I think that's slightly unfair to the paper. "General purpose technology" is being used as an economics term here, not as a claim that ChatGPT is universally useful