There are two types of people:

Some possible definitions:

Thus OurBigBook.com.

Inferior compared to self-directed learning, but better than the traditional "everyone gets the same" approach.

Ciro Santilli approves of this one, related: Section "Free gifted education".

The downside of the Thiel Fellowship is that it is realistically impossible for its fellows to do anything in deep tech, only information science startups would be possible, as they would not have the labs, or lab skills required for any deep tech if they drop out before a PhD. Related: Section "The only reason for universities to exist should be the laboratories".

The only solution is the harder process of actually remodelling our very broken educational system.

Cool that there is actually a page for a change: www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/exams/timetables e.g. working in 2024: web.archive.org/web/20240305013807/https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/exams/timetables

And translating from their arcane vocabulary:

Yes, most of the very rich have acquired their wealth through unfair means, be it through unfair government action like intellectual property, subsidies, bailouts, low-interest loans, etc., or violence, historic or current. Regarding pure socialism/communism, a war to fully redistribute the riches of the wealthy will likely never happen, and cause great devastation if it did.

In a libertarian system, even if everyone started out equally wealthy, some would end up richer than others, as people of differening competency and diligence should. But libertarianism makes things fair even if some are very wealthy.

One who owns a lot of resources can rent or loan it to others without much additional cost to themselves, and make a percentage return. But by making them compete with other rich people, assuming resources are plenty, the ones that offers it for the lowest price, ie., makes the closest to zero profit, will get all the customers.

As for why even partial wealth redistribution isn't preferred in a libertarian society, note that the company that provides the customer with the most value for their money wins. The riches of a wealthy person are assets to be used to finance their business, even if turned into houses or jewelery, since they can be liquidated when needed. Taking these away punishes the best company, which is counter-productive. If a lot of it is turned into stuff like parties and luxury vacations, the company isn't being very efficient, and will likely be replaced quickly in a free market. If not, that means people who can afford it are willingly transferring their money by overpaying due to their affinity for the entity, in which case libertarians would argue they have every right to spend that fairly earned money.

Given jointly by the department of Physics of the University of Oxford and the mathematics institute of the University of Oxford.

We just use "Abstract algebra" as a synonym for algebra.