testfactor

So the mentally ill have no agency? A person with autism is no better than an animal, unable to rise above their condition in any way?

It seems to me that proclivity is an explanation, not an excuse. The same way that upbringing or bad influences are an explanation, not an excuse.

Why is some who's "demanding respect they don't deserve" an asshole as opposed to just someone who's suffering from mental problems that make them act that way?

How would you differentiate "someone with mental problems" from "someone who behaves in a way that is opposed to what I believe is 'right'"?

It doesn't have to not hit pedestrians. It just has to hit less pedestrians than the average human driver.

That is what we're debating, yes.

If it could be conclusively proven that a system like this has saved a child's life, would that benefit outweigh the misuse?

If not, how many children's lives would it need to save for it to outweigh the misuse?

Sure, maybe, but I'd also say you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Yes, we should absolutely have better mental healthcare safety nets. Yes, false positives are probably a pretty common prank.

But this isn't a zero sum game. This can work on tandem with a therapist/counsellor to try and identify someone before they shoot up a school and get them help. This might let the staff know a kid is struggling with suicidal ideation before they find the kid OD'd on moms sleeping pills.

In an ideal world would this be unnecessary? Absolutely. But we don't live in that ideal world.

That argument could be expanded to any tool though.

People run people over with cars or drive drunk. Ban cars?

People use computers to distribute CP. Ban computers?

People use baseball bats to bludgeon people to death. Ban baseball?

The question of if a tool should be banned is driven by if its utility is outweighed by the negative externalities of use by bad actors.

The answer is wildly more nuanced than "if it can hurt someone it must be banned."

The word I would contest is "inoperable."

The system is more than just a retrospective yes or no after 10 years. You have to work with the DoEd to submit paperwork from your employer to make sure they qualify. You have to work with the DoEd to make sure the type of payments or deferments you're doing are qualified. Etc.

There have been government employees actively working with people on this for the whole of the 17 years. This is a program that has, in fact, "been around for a long time" in a meaningful way.

Yes, the Trump Administration did a good awful job in trying to intentionally eff it up. But people were in fact able to get through it.

Right now, I know several people who are just a few payments away from being able to qualify, but can't due to payment freezes with the Mohela cutover and all the legal stuff going on with it. Which, to be clear, I'm not blaming on the Biden administration. But it isn't like the program has made much meaningful headway in the past 4 years either.

And it seems like this is the easier battle to win than general student loan forgiveness. Expand PSLF. Reduce the term to 5 years and reduce the administrative burdens and overhead. Allow a wider range of zero-cost-payment deferments to count as "qualified payments" towards the total payment number needed.

These would be expansions on policy that have been unchallenged for the past 17 years. That passed through both houses of Congress. This is an easy win that would help ease the burden of millions of Americans. Especially teachers who are cripplingly underpaid and often require a masters degree.

This article feels pretty disingenuous to me.

It glosses over the fact that this is surveillance on computers that the school owns. This isn't them spying on kids personal laptops or phones. This is them exercising reasonable and appropriate oversight of school equipment.

This is the same as complaining that my job puts a filter on my work computer that lets them know if I'm googling porn at work. You can cry big brother all you want, but I think most people are fine with the idea that the corporation I work for has a reasonable case for putting monitoring software on the computer they gave me.

The article also makes the point that, while the companies claim they've stopped many school shootings before they've happened, you can't prove they would have happened without intervention.

And sure. That's technically true. But the article then goes on to treat that assertion as if it's proof that the product is worthless and has never prevented a school shooting, and that's just bad logic.

It's like saying that your alarm clock has woken you up 100 days in a row, and then being like, "well, there's no proof that you wouldn't have woken up on time anyway, even if the alarm wasn't there." Yeah, sure. You can't prove a negative. Maybe I would usually wake up without it. I've got a pretty good sleep schedule after all. But the idea that all 100 are false positives seems a little asinine, no? We don't think it was effective even once?

To be fair, it's a little disingenuous to start counting from the time the first person became eligible, as all the rules had to be in place for over a decade prior to that.

You're framing it as a program that's been around for 7 years, when the reality is that it's been 17.

Don't disagree with most of your points, but the program itself has been around for quite a while.

Could also be a correlation due to people who actually get diagnosed with dyslexia/dysgraphia being more likely to live in places that are more affluent or with better mental healthcare.

That would tend to correlate with generally more accepting populations.