sotonye.substack.com
SS: I make a case for drastically cutting back on education. I argue that education doesn’t achieve its desired goals. The material is irrelevant and students forget much of the material. Most information taught in schools is quickly accessible with a smartphone. Education might be warranted if it boosted cognitive ability but it appears to be increasing IQ scores rather than actual ability to think.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I agree. There's a difference between education and schooling. You don't need to go to school to educate yourself, and most of what a school concerns about is not education.
In particular in the area of information technology we don't bother remembering anything, we develop technologies like wikipedia.org and stackoverflow.com so that relevant information is easily available and retrievable by anyone. No education needed.
If any kills are necessary to learn are those of logic, reasoning and skepticism, otherwise everything else one learns might not be learned properly. Unfortunately I don't see anyone interested in learning these skills, they all believe they already know what they need to know, and no evidence of the contrary would convince them otherwise.
Which why I don't think you will manage to persuade many people. Either they already understand why modern education is not working, or they don't.
I’m probably unpopular here in suggesting that knowing facts about a topic vastly increases the ability to think about that topic and to draw conclusions based on context and new information.
If I know facts about Ukraine, I can use those facts to understand things going on in the country. I know where the minerals are, what their major industries are, and the geography, I can come to guess on the objectives and strategies of the Russian invasion. I might be able to understand the strategy. If I know nothing, I can’t understand it until I learn the facts to give me something to think about.
More options
Context Copy link
Are you saying that Wikipedia does away with the need to memorise information in the area of information technology or of memorising information in general? If the latter I strongly disagree.
Wikipedia is an instance of MediaWiki, but there's many types of wikis. They were created precisely for people to write and avoid memorizing.
So you can disagree, but they were created, people use them, and they work.
They're brilliant resources I won't disagree. But I don't think Wikipedia is good enough to do away with the need to memorise historical facts to the point where someone relying solely on it won't be severely limited.
If someone is misrepresenting history to you, you won't become aware that something is wrong in the first place unless you've got a stock of historical knowledge already built up in your mind (Wikipedia is a decent way to do this, but we're back to memorising information here).
Now you can double check everything you hear on Wikipedia, but even that labour intensive act can't help you find analogous information which won't be considered relevant enough to be included in the same Wikipedia page, but which may be very relevant to the discussion at hand.
This is a false dilemma. You can use Wikipedia to avoid memorizing certain facts, like the year WWII started, and other stuff you happen to remember.
There's many historical fact that I do remember, but I remember because I keep talking about them, and I keep looking them up. I'm not memorizing them, I just happen to remember them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People can’t reason without knowledge. The educated man is a knowledgable man.
You don't need education to gain knowledge. And you don't need to go to a school to be educated.
But it helps.
Knowledge is a form of education even if self taught.
No, it's not. A person can gain knowledge with zero education. They are independent.
A person who gains knowledge outside of formal institutions is still educated, albeit self educated.
That's not what the word education means. A person has to be teaching.
One receives education, one doesn't read it.
By the way that comment contradicts your second comment on this sub thread.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/self–educated
No it doesn't.
You can be educated in a school
You can be educated in your home (private teacher or family teacher)
You can learn by yourself by just reading book (no one educates you)
Yes, dictionaries list many words people don't actually use, and that don't make sense. So?
If you look at online trends, everyone says self-taught of autodidact, not self-educated.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The real purpose of education is to act as a sieve: we put everyone into it and it figures out who is good at what and labels them appropriately as an input to the rest of the economy.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't see anywhere in that piece where you accurately identify what those goals are. You spend a lot of time talking about memorizing information, but as any teacher knows, imparting knowledge is only one goal of education.
I would also note that, while accessing information is easy on a smartphone, so too is accessing incorrect or misleading information. Knowledge of math allows one to note when a calculator gives a nonsensical answer, and familiarity with the 1948 Democratic Convention permits one to question the relevance to claims, often seen on the internet, that Democrats are the "real racists" because once upon a time white Southern racists indeed voted Democratic. Etc, etc.
Finally, let's look at this from the perspective of what is best for actual children. A goal of education is to serve their interests, in part by giving them future opportunities. Most students who read Shakespeare will not go on to lives in which knowledge of Shakespeare is important, but if no child reads Shakespeare, then no child will lead that life; that life will be foreclosed to them. And that btw is the basic flaw in the "most students never use 90% of what is taught": That might be true, but the 10% that is used differs from child to child, and there is no way to know which 10% will be relevant to which child 20 years later.
More options
Context Copy link
Seems like a bad argument. You claim that education represents an effort to "game the test". But if so, why would it increase IQ? Very few schools give lessons in how to pass an IQ test!
"Does generalize" vs "doesn't generalize" seems like a false dichotomy. It sounds like education generalizes to some degree, but not to the point of increasing "general cognitive ability". Call it an increase in "general scholarly ability" or something like that. Increasing "general scholarly ability" could still be a huge deal. Lots of important intellectual tasks probably depend on "general scholarly ability" in addition to "general cognitive ability".
BTW, I made the argument above due to my knowledge of causal graphs, which is itself something I learned in an educational context. Does my knowledge of causal graphs cause me to score higher on an IQ test? Probably not. But it does make me a better thinker and scholar.
Furthermore, your post misses an important point: Average IQ might not matter much for national prosperity. It may be the case that what matters is the IQ of the top 5% of the population. The top 5% will be over-represented in key administrative roles and in innovation clusters that drive economic growth. See https://www.institutostrom.org/en/2018/09/09/hive-mind-how-your-nations-iq-matters-so-much-more-than-your-own-interview-with-garett-jones/
So instead of discussing the impact of education on the population as a whole, perhaps we should be focused on the impact of education on the so-called "cognitive elite". I think there are a number of reasons to believe this impact is positive. In the absence of education, it seems likely to me that much of the "cognitive elite" would fail to acquire the belief that scholarship is important, get nerd sniped by computer games, and fail to develop self-discipline. Our education system teaches the "cognitive elite" to be snooty nerds who think that ability to solve tricky calculus problems is what's important in life, because they're surrounded by peers who can't solve those problems, and their ability to solve those problems makes them feel special. Without an education system, those same nerds would just be an unusually talented bicycle mechanic in an African peasant village, letting their potential go to waste.
I think the education of the cognitive elite matters a lot, because scholarship is a force multiplier on general cognitive ability. (By "force multiplier", I mean if your general cognitive ability is low, scholarship won't help much, but if it is high, scholarship can help a lot.) A few thousand years ago, humans had similar biological potential and general cognitive ability, but ancient civilizations weren't able to do cool stuff like modern civilizations -- essentially, because their wise men were focused on divining the will of the gods from sheep entrails instead of arguing about causal graphs.
Suppose we did a study in Ancient Greece which found that being tutored by Aristotle had no effect on the lives of 99% of Athenians. It seems like whatever Aristotle has to teach us cannot help Athenians with everyday tasks like farming and shopkeeping. We conclude that Aristotle is a fraud and learning from him is a waste of time. Then Alexander the Great gets tutored by Aristotle and conquers a huge fraction of the known world.
So overall my argument is something like: A country whose bureaucrats are familiar with e.g. causal graphs will make better policy than a country whose bureaucrats don't understand causal graphs. And education is a way to increase the fraction of bureaucrats who understand causal graphs. If we abandoned our commitment to education, none of our bureaucrats will understand causal graphs, and that will cause them to make bad policy, which will have bad downstream effects. I don't think this argument is refuted by your analysis.
n=1, totally rational. Genghis Khan was tutored by no philosopher, lost father early in life, had to kill with a bow to survive, and conquered greater fraction of world than Alexander, and his empire still kept expanding for decades after his death.
Genghis Khan was also known for his focus on recruiting experts from every region that he conquered. He might not have been a scholar himself, but he valued scholarship.
In any case, you are correct that small-n tells us little. I mention these examples as intuition pumps.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fully agree. In addition, many people somehow graduate school whilst being 'functionally illiterate'. This suggests that they're a massive waste of time, failing their supposed goals.
https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy
I've heard people argue that clearly the sixth-grade level of literacy is too high or that it's an unrealistic standard - but then what is the point of the seventh grade? What is the point of teaching people Shakespeare if they can't understand it? I think Shakespeare was a huge waste of time, yet I can appreciate parts of it, there's some interesting wordplay.
20% are functionally illiterate. I suppose this includes a great many people who don't know English at all since they weren't born in an English speaking country. Even so, this is pretty bad. I've seen too many videos of Americans being asked basic questions and knowing nothing. For example: https://youtube.com/watch?v=g2oMv93EUpY or https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ufmcubp2szg or https://youtube.com/watch?v=wu7RXlIEbog
Eagle eyed viewers may notice that white men are not prominent in these clips, there's obviously a cherrypicking process where the people who answer correctly aren't included. Hbd is clearly a factor here. But still, I would've thought it would've thought stuff like 'what country did the US gain independence from' would be universally known in the US. It should be all but impossible for our youtuber to find a native English speaker who doesn't know what country the US got its independence from.
(As an aside, ChatGPT has human intelligence - there's no doubt about it. Issues with anagrams and making funny jokes pale in comparison with the gaping stupidity and categorical ignorance 'Asia is a country' of many Americans.)
There ought to be a slash-and-burn approach to education. It's not just America, other parts of the Anglosphere are deteriorating in a similar fashion. In the immortal words of Donald Trump, we need to shut everything down until we know what is going on.
This is an argument for a better education system. Or maybe for a smarter population. It’s not an argument against education or knowledge acquisition.
Yes. OP isn't arguing against education in general, just saying that it's poorly done in such a way that it doesn't justify the coercion and expense involved. He wants less of the traditional kind of education, different kinds of education (teach practical skills). I assume there's still a place for literacy in OP's worldview, or knowing enough about mathematics to understand compound interest.
I'm saying that in addition to the failings OP mentioned, school is not adequately teaching the skills they're supposed to, that they're failing even by their own metrics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It appears that literacy scores are lower for older adults than for younger adults. Since educational attainment also tends to be lower for older adults than for younger adults, it seems that the literacy data tends not to support OP's position.
More options
Context Copy link
For a more scientific look at what elementary knowledge Americans posses, broken down by race and sex, see this survey by Pew. @starless_sea
Example from the study: 78% of men and 59% of women know that oil, natural gas and coal are examples of fossil fuels. If the YouTube videos above reflected this, they would have twice as many stupid answers from women than from men. They have about x3 as many women as men (quick check, it seems like more since the women gets more air time). But the disparity would increase as the questions gets easier, and the questions do seem easier than this, so maybe they do reflect a fair sample. I still think these kind of YouTube videos are full of bias and make bad models unless they seem really trustworthy in their methodology (which the linked ones don't).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's common for youtubers to hire actors to give scripted answers in man-on-the-street skits, especially in skits were young, attractive women gets "humiliated". Seems like a certain demographic really likes this. So first I would like to verify that these are real people.
Second, we don't know what the prep is like before the camera starts. "Hi, we're from YouTube, we are going to ask some questions, please give us your craziest funniest random answer!". So are these real answers that reflect the knowledge of the person asked?
Third, it seems likely that the creator of these videos cherrypicked young women to interview since that's what gets the views (the right-wing audience who watches this right-wing YouTube channel doesn't want to see Bob the Redneck look clueless, they want black and Hispanic women draped in pride flags).
So I don't think these videos show anything without a lot of additional context. These videos are not scientific. They are made for entertainment, and the algorithm is strong. The "obvious cherrypicking" you notice is likely an editorial choice.
More options
Context Copy link
... Say you're in a car accident. A dozen bones broken, you're driven to the nearest hospital unconscious. After eighteen hours of tireless work by surgeons and two weeks of medical support, you wake up - you've lost all sensation in your left arm, and can barely walk. A year of physical therapy later, you can walk well enough to get by, but not much else has improved. Does this suggests that surgery and physical therapy were "massive wastes of time, failing their supposed goals"?
No, because without surgery, you'd be dead, and without PT you wouldn't be walking. "Functionally illiterate" means you can't pass literacy tests, but probably still understand written language well enough to read instructions at your job and math well enough to count money. School helped with that! These matter for dumb poor people who want to earn money or survive. This doesn't make school great, maybe it should be entirely replaced with something better, but it isn't a waste of time compared to 'staying home, playing video games, job at mcdonalds at 14'.
“Functionally illiterate” means the exact opposite: that you CAN pass literacy tests (they kind they give up to grade 6, anyway) but can’t read well enough to read and understand something in day-to-day life.
It looks like functional illiteracy is a badly defined term anyway.
From wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy
“ A reading level that might be sufficient to make a farmer functionally literate in a rural area of a developing country might qualify as functional illiteracy in an urban area of a technologically advanced country.”
Because they can’t understand how to RTFM? I think there’s a weird standard here, not everyone needs to understand anything above a 6th grade level to do many jobs, in my mind these people are literate enough for what they need.
More options
Context Copy link
Bleh my bad for mixing ideas without paying attention. I don't think that impacts the point though - I'm pretty sure even level 1 and below adults (22%) can read significantly more than they could if school was simply abolished, and L2 + L3 (32% + 33%) "can perform simple tasks based on the information they read".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But are we dealing with resolving damage or creating improvement? Healing is hard. Fixing a broken building is hard, there could be various complications that you discover. But building a new structure is fairly easy. Furthermore, we're being sold on a certain level of performance, not an open-ended improvement. Schools are saying they're trying to create creative, dynamic students for the 21st century, yet many can't even read?
Creating improvement should be easy, especially when you're given huge amounts of time and money. Say you promise a nice bridge with pedestrian access and two lanes for vehicles up to and including large trucks - I pay you a lot of money to achieve this result. Then after 12 years I get a rope bridge or something pathetic. I'd rightly be very angry with your performance. A rope bridge is better than nothing but it doesn't meet agreed upon standards. A sixth grade standard of reading should be achieved by the end of the sixth grade, certainly by the seventh. If they can't do it, send them back until they can, or send them away without graduating! Instead we have blatant fraud: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/unearned-diplomas-10849.html
Primary school alone should be enough to read instructions at your job and count money. What good is high school for these people then?
The hospital thing was just an example, and that it was 'healing' vs 'building new' isn't important for the analogy - a bucket with a small leak is a significant improvement over no bucket.
Improvement is created! Most people pre-schooling were illiterate, whereas only 22% of adults are 'level one and below'. I agree it's quite bad as it stands, but if doing better is so easy, got any concrete suggestions?
Direct Instruction, restoring discipline via creating credible expectations of punishment for rowdy students and raising standards in teachers. Many teaching students are already quite unintelligent and there's high attrition due to a bad work environment. We should be hiring smarter people to be teachers, it's an important job. Improving the working environment would reduce churn and allow standards to be raised.
I'd also start hacking away at the educationalists who've done a terrible job in the last 50 years or so. Too much leftist ideology, not enough performance. Training of teachers needs to be thoroughly reformed along evidence-based lines, not trendy buzzwords. There's probably more low-hanging fruit like direct instruction that could be adopted.
These suggestions are, of course, on everyone's wishlist. They are not, however, concrete.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean seven hours of lectures every day, no dice. If you mean "teachers are expected to teach phonics and arithmetic explicitly, yes, they are already required to do this in most places.
What would the punishments be? How would you enforce them in the face of the "black children more likely" crowd? Don't say "I would start a small private school with no low performing children of color." Those already exist, and are doing well enough. They are not where the illiteracy lies.
So you... give them a harder test? And then when you don't have enough teachers and there are smart people teaching 50 6 year olds at a time who quit after six months because that's impossible, you... what, exactly?
Everyone already wants this. This is not a concrete suggestion.
In what way?
Lol. This is, of course, what the educationalists say. This is how they keep their positions churning out new low quality "research" and "professional development" year after year. This is wearing out teachers, as they struggle to "collect and analize data" in 30 minute segments twice a week. How would you prevent this without being empowered to personally vet that "evidence."
You already mentioned that one. None of this is low hanging fruit. Everything you mentioned is pushed constantly, exhaustingly, unremittingly by the education establishment already. This is just a pie in the sky wishlist, which the world is already flooded with.
I don't have a good solution either, that fits within the very onerous constraints of existing within a huge bureaucracy that's determined to equalize unequal things.
There are educational theorists with actually concrete suggestions, but they struggle in the face of unwieldy bureaucracies with a thousand tiny, onerous rules and regulations, of exactly the sort you outline above, and uninterested demographics, which is the hard lift, and the fulcrum of change.
Direct Instruction is widely shunned. Teachers hate it, students like it. It works. It genuinely is low-hanging fruit. I'm referring to an actual technical term hence the capitalization, I don't need to define it. Just search it up!
Getting locked in a quiet room without a phone for several hours would be one option. Fines and a criminal record would be another option. Expelling those who are committed to being egregious. Certainly not suspension or getting sent to some 'behavioral specialist', those are limpwristed and scream weakness.
I'd ignore the 'black children most likely crowd' and send them to prison when they start rioting. It's a political choice to listen to these people.
If you make the job more attractive by preventing teachers from being harassed, then attrition will reduce and you can be more selective with applicants. That's what I mean by improving the working environment. Reducing the pointless bureaucracy would also help, there are too many administrators. That would save money.
The educationalists have been lying. As you say, they've been churning out low quality 'research' that doesn't help. Cost-efficiency has declined. But just because they're lying, it doesn't follow that it's impossible to improve the quality of education scientifically, it's only that we've had an outbreak like Lysenkoism. We could inspect what the best teachers do, film their classes and analyse them. Is it charisma? Incentivizing students to work harder via personal relationships? Intelligence? High quality students? Are they gaming our measurements of success?
Direct Instruction is a concrete suggestion and I want to pole-axe the bureaucracy anyway. You can't get real change if you're committed to leaving things the same, it's a contradiction.
Yes, it is what I thought it was. I think you're talking about this kind of thing.
So, yeah, there's some tension between the approaches that work best for children with dyslexia and children at risk for illiteracy (but who can read if instructed well), and what at least some teachers prefer.
There are things schools and the educational establishment can do to mitigate this. Letting teachers know up front what they're getting into, rather than BS about Rousseau or whatever. A few schools have teachers follow students as they progress through the elementary grades, rather than staying at one grade level for multiple years, so they don't become burnt out on phonics. Interventionists and tutoring for children who aren't getting enough out of their core courses, using curriculum designed specifically for dyslexia. Programs specifically for the children who already know how to read and are bored with repeated instructions. Aesthetically pleasing special schools for children at no risk of failing to learn to read. I personally do not much want my daughters to do year after year of direct instruction in phonics if they already understand how to read and spell by six or so, which is likely, based on family history. I could be wrong, maybe one of them will prove to be dyslexic or something. ButI would rather they do some kind of aesthetically pleasing Waldorf or Forest School or Montessori or some other kind of hipster program after learning the basics, though I'm unsure if we'll be able to make that happen financially. I would prefer more of a voucher program, probably with more money attaching to the "at-risk" children than to the children who will still learn to read if they spend three hours a day hiking and watercoloring or whatever. I was homeschooled probably four hours a day, which was plenty, and my social circles are very open to this kind of thing. We (myself and my social circle) are in some ways overly literate, and trying to correct for this. My default state is reading, so here I am reading this, rather than planting seeds, which I told myself I would do today. Compulsive reading and akrasia do not show up in the statistics, but much more like what I and the people close to me deal with.
Direct instruction is already very common, but maybe not common enough. I assume you think that whatever the current amount of school time is being spent on direct instruction is not enough. Good news: the pendulum is already swinging. A quick search did not reveal what the current breakdown is. Chat GPT says, likely wrongly, 50% - 80%, and I suppose 50% would be low, if true. Colleges of education like focusing on things like think-pair-share, flipped classrooms, or AVID program kinds of discussion and enquiry, probably because it gives the professors something contentless to do. This is mostly a waste of time, to be sure, especially for lower elementary teachers, since most of the alternative methods assume a child can read, or that they can guess well enough to pretend to read. I was treated to a two hour lecture a while back about how The Neuroscience Shows that children should read about something, rather than than nothing, and that it probably matters what the something is, and it's more interesting to talk about the something than about the reading. The researchers must have been very stupid indeed that they needed neuroscience to figure that out.
It appears to be unclear what, exactly, the effect of higher quality teachers is, above a certain baseline. But, sure, everyone agrees that this would be great, and sometimes if enough teachers quit or strike, improvements are made. It would be better to not wait that long, for sure.
Anyway, I'm not certain that this is a useful level of abstraction. If a Mottizen were Education Czar, perhaps they could pole-axe the bureaucracy, sequester unruly children, improve the quality of social science research, and bring back the good old days. Or perhaps not.
Right now my state legislature is debating adding 100 hrs of instructional time to our elementary schools. I do not like it, but am not sure if my dislike is well grounded or not. My preference is for less default schooling, rather than more, especially for younger children, along with summer school for kids who aren't doing well, and less expensive play based childcare available to those who want it. I can't really write a letter to the state legislature or go into a meeting with administration and say "pole-axe the bureaucracy!" But there is some support for things like charter schools, vouchers, 4 day school weeks (this is apparently already common in rural districts with long drive times), and half day kindergartens used to be more of a thing. All of which are more like what I support than the alternatives. But I'm still trying to figure out exactly what my position is, and whether it's well grounded or not. It's probably just a case of kids at different ages and from different backgrounds needing different things, and it's a matter of what my own students and daughters happen to need more or less of.
I'd differentiate classes based on ability. The A-class would move ahead more quickly than the B and C classes, the F class would stay behind until they mastered the content. This does mean acknowledging that some people are smarter than others, yet it would be possible to move up if you did well in exams. Or down, if you did poorly. If the A-class finished early, they could pad out their part of the term with extensions. For your children who I assume would be very smart, they could spend more of their English time in the library doing free reading, or write their own stuff or something. I loved quiet reading time and still do, probably falling in your category of overly literate people.
This is how I was educated in high school and would've been nice to have back in primary school. Even in primary school we had special classes for the smart children, where we got to play around with robots most of the time since it was assumed we'd stay well ahead of the rest. There really is no limit to how far you can go in the humanities or the sciences. In my last year of high school I remember being shocked by these kids who could ad-lib a dialogue about the meaning of historiography, taking on the ideology of Zinn and various other people. It was a seriously impressive display when compared to us mere mortals who stuck to the scripts we had prepared earlier. I did go to a very good school, so my experience is very different from everyone else's.
The American 'everyone learns at the same pace so the stupid kids get left behind and the best kids are bored stiff and fantasizing about culling the stupid/teachers/stupid teachers' system seems like a gross failure. I just haven't really experienced it apart from people complaining about it online.
As for Orwell's experience, the system at least got results. I can sympathize with the struggle in learning classics, I had to do some of that at a much lower level of intensity. But Britain ruled the world back in those days, they had plenty of tough men who were ready to conquer and die for the empire. Despite an institutional contempt for science, Britain led the world in radar and jet engines. Orwell himself was no dimwit, his mastery of language is undisputed. What great minds has modern Britain turned out like Orwell? The social democratic education system is turning out people who get anxious answering the telephone, not warrior-poets.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
'especially'? Those concepts are in opposition to one another. Equality before the law is a tenet of enlightenment liberalism, what progressives fight against. They want favourable, unequal treatment before the law for some groups, not the old-school 'colourblindness'. You might say they both want equality in some form. But they've definitely taken a diverging view of the 'legal' bit.
More options
Context Copy link
This is the Freddie + Caplan argument. Agree. For those who lack the aptitude and or drive, education is just busywork or daycare that at best only instills basic skills. Anything beyond just reading and writing does not stick: hence, poor outcomes on general knowledge tests. Nothing learned after 8th grade is of any use for most people, either because it's not needed or it will be forgotten anyway. I remember reading Shakespeare in high school; don't remember any of it. World history was sorta useful but I could have learned that on my own. Education is just a signal for the ability to be compliant and sit still, and some baseline competence.
It's also useless for many who have the aptitude and the drive.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Does it?
More options
Context Copy link