Given the original book examining that question was published in 1955 my guess is because Johnny 78 and can't remember where he left his glasses.
But back in the Eisenhower years little Johnny couldn't read because teachers weren't teaching phonics, the relationship between written letters and spoken sounds.
Back in the core of the boomer years the trend was to jump too quickly from phonics to sight reading, recognising an entire word and its pronunciation from memory. If you were already a strong reader you were likely fine with this; if you were at all behind you would be left struggling.
Fast-forward a few decades and we find new generations of children who still can't read because they have been trapped by the once new trendy pedagogies. Molly Woodworth was a poor reader as a child and came up with tricks to help make it through lessons, though the tricks never worked terribly well.
When she looked at the reading lessons for her daughter Claire, she was horrified to discover that the tricks she created for herself, the same ones that didn't work for her, were being taught as standard practice.
>A couple of years ago, Woodworth was volunteering in Claire's kindergarten classroom. The class was reading a book together and the teacher was telling the children to practice the strategies that good readers use.
>The teacher said, "If you don't know the word, just look at this picture up here," Woodworth recalled. "There was a fox and a bear in the picture. And the word was bear, and she said, 'Look at the first letter. It's a "b." Is it fox or bear?'"
>Woodworth was stunned. "I thought, 'Oh my God, those are my strategies.' Those are the things I taught myself to look like a good reader, not the things that good readers do," she said. "These kids were being taught my dirty little secrets."
Why are teachers deliberately sabotaging reading skills?
Enter Ken Goodman.
>The theory is known as "three cueing." The name comes from the notion that readers use three different kinds of information - or "cues" - to identify words as they are reading.
>The theory was first proposed in 1967, when an education professor named Ken Goodman presented a paper at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York City.
>In the paper, Goodman rejected the idea that reading is a precise process that involves exact or detailed perception of letters or words.
Goodman still believed that when this article was written in 2019, the author requested and was granted an interview.
The problem is, Goodman was proven wrong fifty years ago:
>So, in 1975, Stanovich and a fellow graduate student set out to test the idea in their lab. They recruited readers of various ages and abilities and gave them a series of word-reading tasks. Their hypothesis was that skilled readers rely more on contextual cues to recognize words than poor readers, who probably weren't as good at using context.
>They couldn't have been more wrong.
>"To our surprise, all of our research results pointed in the opposite direction," Stanovich wrote. "It was the poorer readers, not the more skilled readers, who were more reliant on context to facilitate word recognition."
Or to put it another way:
>Goldberg realized lots of her students couldn't actually read the words in their books; instead, they were memorizing sentence patterns and using the pictures to guess. One little boy exclaimed, "I can read this book with my eyes shut!"
>"Oh no," Goldberg thought. "That is not reading."
Why did Goodman still believe in his failed ideas after all this time? (At the time the article was written, he was 91 and had just published a new edition of his book.)
Put as politely as possible, he is an idiotic kike:
>"Word recognition is a preoccupation," he said. "I don't teach word recognition. I teach people to make sense of language. And learning the words is incidental to that." No, he really meant that:
>I pressed him on this. First of all, a pony isn't the same thing as a horse. Second, don't you want to make sure that when a child is learning to read, he understands that /p//o//n//y/ says "pony"?
>And different letters say "horse"?
He dismissed my question.
>"The purpose is not to learn words," he said. "The purpose is to make sense."
Like a true jew he tripled down minutes later:
>In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their labs.
"My science is different," Goodman said.
And why is fashionable nonsense so entrenched in education?
Lots of reasons, one primary reason, is because jews want you to learn this way. It is actually how hebrew is taught.
Proximate cause: Visa and Mastercard deciding they have to act as global fun censors.
Distal cause: Some random group of Australians called Collective Shout who have for years believed they have to act as global fun censors.
>As a result of Collective Shout's actions, in tandem with the payment processors, over 20,000 games, books, comics, and other creative works - confirmed via the Internet Archive - functionally ceased to exist on the site (though purchased content remains in users' libraries so long as it doesn't violate itch.io's new guidelines), imperiling the creators who depend on sales from itch.io. In addition to NSFW content, notable projects that didn't have the tag were caught up in the purge as well.
So we doing Shimoneta now?
>Whenever a platform announces a blanket ban on adult content, LGBTQ+ creators are almost always disproportionately affected, harming queer artists and invariably queer people.
This is true, because "queer" artists and "queer" people are sex-obsessed lunatics with various paraphilias.
>"It concerns me when standard safety practices aren't upheld across the AI industry, like publishing the results of dangerous capability evaluations," said Steven Adler, an independent AI researcher who previously led safety teams at OpenAI, in a statement to TechCrunch. "Governments and the public deserve to know how AI companies are handling the risks of the very powerful systems they say they're building. Without proper testing Grok 4 might answer people's questions, and then where will the industry be?
They're scanning your recycling and feeding the data into AI.
Which seems more reasonable to me. If you're putting stuff into the recycling bin that can't be recycled, that's an active nuisance and sending stuff to landfill that might have been recycled isn't.
@SuperSnekFriend No, the article highlights a significant vulnerability in cryptographic proof systems, mostly those relying on the random oracle model used in blockchains.
To overcome this programmers need to focus on secure and reliable cryptographic methods rather than on performance enhancements or efficiency improvements.
Not a fatal hole, by my reading. The underlying technique is called Fiat-Shamir transforms and has been proven to be secure if the random numbers used are truly random. The trick here is that if you know how the random numbers are generated, a malicious program can use that information to "prove" things that aren't true.
If you require that the program code be less complicated than your random number generator, though, this attack is foiled.
Ackchyually, this has been going on for years in Panama. These are New World Screwworm flies, and they are a major problem. The project, which has been keeping them penned up in South America for decades, breeds huge numbers of sterile but otherwise healthy males, which then compete to breed with the females, which produces... Nothing.
But that's the point. It has to be kept up continuously (and has been) but it has drastically reduced their numbers north of the canal since the 1960s. Until recently, when they swarmed and made a break for it.
The fly-factory in Panama currently produces 117 million involuntary sterile flies per week; the plan is to increase the number of sexual zombies to 400 million per week to outcompete real men. Real flies. Real fly men. You know what I mean.