> The problem with systematic approaches is that they lose out on the long tail, whereas that long tail was their only excuse to exist in the first place.

If I'm understanding, in this example it means something like: in a large population there will be those who have the potential but lack the means to realize it, who can perhaps be helped by doling out "free" education all around (i.e. systematic); yet the hefty costs of that proposition mean the system ends up unable to cater to any but the mythical average pupil and thus accomplishes pretty much nothing of value.

> That said, I sympathize with the teacher, at least in the sense that I deem her answer just as remarkable as yours.

Assuming I've got the year right, the teacher there was a Mister, but that was the exception at those ages indeed. A chill guy, no complaints really, I liked all my grade school teachers pretty much until year five (which so happens to be where they really started breaking the relationship down by subject).

> Indeed she's right, she had asked for one. It's good that you know there's more, and it can't really be held against a 3rd grader that he'd indulge the vanity.

The analytical mind contests, "but it wasn't mere vanity: he asked for *the* solid; the question is ill-formed so it can't be correctly answered as given!" And how could the domain of salient knowledge on a given topic ever be constrained to the tidy little box of "the contents of this here textbook / Standard of Learning"?

But no, I suppose we never will get anything done if we remain forever silent out of respect for the boundless unknown from whence could swoop some dragon to knock down our towers of knowledge at any time.

On this thread there was also http://trilema.com/2018/technology-and-governance/ , and http://trilema.com/2020/forum-logs-for-25-jan-2020/#2575173 , and doubtless more.

I honestly don't know how true it is. Maybe my experience's outlying, but it does seem that life's quite eminently fair, if generally uninclined to cater to peculiar notions of "fairness", chiefly constructed as they are out of the cripple self-protecting against perceived pain (which is how it manages to come into conflict with preteen's expectations -- and in the process get itself a bad name forever).

> Teacher: "Yes Jacob; but the third grade answer is the cube."

See, the fact that they don't... I dunno, say give the school keys to that kid is probably the worst problem with institutional education. I'd just have sent you over to the principal's office to have his desk for the remainder of the period, why the hell not.

The problem with systematic approaches is that they lose out on the long tail, whereas that long tail was their only excuse to exist in the first place.

That said, I sympathize with the teacher, at least in the sense that I deem her answer just as remarkable as yours. Indeed she's right, she had asked for one. It's good that you know there's more, and it can't really be held against a 3rd grader that he'd indulge the vanity. But what she asked was...

Context, you see ? The third grade answer is "the cube" in exactly the same way "ten word me" is 10 words long. I get it, there's more to it, or at least... there could be ; but not right now. Is this a bad thing ? Should all contexts be forever superlatively expansive ? We will never get anything done!

I was going to say the "not fair!!" seems to mean "I want things I see others have, without having to do what they or their predecessors did to get them." But the non-fairness runs deeper than that of course; what's the poor bacterium to do, evolve harder?

Fwiw, I give the "life's not fair, get used to it" treatment each and every time someone comes to me with the purely idiotic "but it's not fair!!!waaaa!!!". Even better, I'll heap some more unfairness on the idiot too, since they are asking for it.