Just keep giving the people more loneliness machines until the loneliness improves.

All voters are affected by recency bias, even the ones on this site who are most worked up about what happened. In a year's time, they will be worked up about things, and the budget deal will recede in importance or be completely forgotten.

Many of those proclaiming the death of the Democratic Party have already forgotten the previous ten times they made the same proclamation. In a year's time, all of the events of that year will have long since overtaken memories of what is happening now. Recency bias will ensure that.

For example, it would be a mistake to think we should give any special consideration to candidates who are big, brawny, manly men. They might be good candidates, but not because of their testosterone or beefiness.

This is a real political problem for liberals and the Democratic Party, but I don't think there are any magical solutions to the problem. Like most problems of this nature, the best we can do is continue to muddle through. But it would be a mistake to think changing "the vibe" would do anything.

All the talk about the crisis of masculinity, and the attempt to blame liberals for depriving men of a sense of purpose, is just an attempt to ignore the fundamental issue: many men simply do not want to give up the benefits and privileges that society has traditionally given them.

Implicit bias is usually preferable to explicit propaganda.

One consequence of the GOP selling its soul to Donald Trump is that the party has become a passive, hollowed-out shell riddled with grifters and self-promoters and can no longer pursue a coherent political strategy.

I think critics of edtech would be less concerned if administrators were cautious and limited in their introduction of these kinds of tools. Instead, we rightfully fear that modest studies will be used as justification for gutting academic departments and replacing teachers with tech.

I also think it's essential to distinguish carefully between (a) suggestive results from studies of carefully designed and narrowly implemented tools, and (b) grandiose visions of the educational singularity. We do not have a good track record of avoiding this conflation. Hype fast outruns prudence.

Second, I suspect that there will be motivation problems. Humans have evolved to learn from their elders and peers. They are motivated by the desire to please other human beings. For most students, the social aspect of learning is very important. Few are autodidactic enough to do it on their own.

In my AP Lit class, we read Pride and Prejudice, Crime and Punishment, The Heart of Darkness, The Metamorphosis, Native Son, and The Stranger, plus poems, plays and stories. All we did was read, discuss, and write.

In a couple of my AP classes, I didn't feel like taking the AP tests, so I didn't. Nobody said anything to me about it.

This is how it was done about 35 years ago. We did a few practice writing exercises in the weeks leading up to the test, but otherwise I don't remember even thinking about it. It was that way in all of my AP classes. I don't remember any time devoted to test prep.

An extra comma doesn't completely avoid confusion. The problem is structuring the list as a title followed by two descriptions, creating an inherent ambiguity that one of the items in the list might function as an appositive. Either put the title last or make all of the items in the list parallel.

How do you know?