Well, I can see that you never made that experience. I have.

Yet you're the one who speaks favorably about shoplifting.

Which you failed to do when you talked your "kid" into spending huge sums of money that he never even had for a degree that's basically worthless, and will pay for it for the rest of his life.

https://www.merriam-webster.co...

So what does that say about you, given you're even less intelligent than they are?

You both are wrong. The question is whether it's worth the cost. There's no question or concern over political crap like rsilvergun thinks there is. The question is more: Do you get what you pay for?

And to me, this isn't a simple yes or no answer. The answer I'd give is: What degree did you get, and what did you pay for it? No matter what degree you have, I'd say that if you spent more than $150k, under any circumstance, then you got ripped off. Period.

rsilvergun keeps whining that his imaginary "kid" borrowed $300,000. There is no rhyme or reason to spend that much for any degree, let alone one that has nearly zero chance of ever paying that off within his lifetime. And worse, he blames that on, of all things, republicans, even though the government has been keeping up with inflation when it comes to pell grants and other funding.

And at the same time, he holds blameless the very institutions who have been raising their tuition rates at several times the rate of inflation for decades, and then conned his dumb as into believing that he needs this really bad, even though he really didn't. Or at the very least, he could have done far better by going to community college first, then going to a public in-state university, where borrowing may not even be necessary at all. But at the end of the day, we live in a free society, which also includes being free to make one incredibly bad life decision right after the other.

Indeed. People with a good education have _options_. And that means they do not have to take crap. Obviously, quite a few assholes do not like to have that type of person around.

It really depends. As degrees in the US are a big business, there are many worthless degrees and many that you can get easily, making them worthless if you did it the easy way.

Funny thing. The largest private (i.e. for profit) University in Germany currently has problems because many students find the degrees are not valuable and they do not learn a lot. No such problems with the regular ones. I think commercial education is just broken because of perverted incentives.

Getting a degree does not absolve you from really learning and being good at things. I think a significant pert of the people with degrees that have trouble finding jobs did select "easy" ones or took it wayyyy to easy getting them. Commercial "education" will make that easy, but you waste your time and money that way.

Then surely you can provide ample evidence of that.

By definition, a wall of text is unformatted. The proper term is rant.

They're not you, either. Yet you're sitting here trying to tell me, based on your own experiences and biases, that the local content is superior while also saying that the majority aren't going to care enough about it to pay for it. You're literally arguing against yourself. I'm not. I still remember talking to a few Aussies about this exact issue on reddit (or something, I don't recall exactly) and they kept going on to rant about an American pop singer named Kesha (who I'd never even heard of by that point) always making their top ten charts for upwards of four months at a time. I really doubt that was due to her being heavily promoted or something like that. Rather, Australians just really liked her music more than anybody else, including ones in her own country. If this was purely due to promotional efforts, then why on earth wouldn't they promote artists that were already doing much better in much larger markets?

The simplest explanation is the most likely. Besides, what would local music there even sound like? Mel Gibson playing a didgeridoo? More ACDC?

It also doesn't mean anything. You might recall the cola wars. Or the sneaker wars during the same period. The party that massively out-spent the other quite often didn't win. People keep repeating this same line about politics as well, but conveniently ignore all the candidates (e.g. Hillary) who massively outspent their opponent (e.g. Trump.) And that is nowhere close to being the first time this happened. Hell, look at the lessons learned during Lessig's Mayday Pac, which was a complete and utter flop.

Because people without degrees are often just envious.

I routinely ask my part-time students why they chose to get that degree after all. It is "need more skills for my job", "no career options without that degree" and sometimes "I really want to know more about things". This mostly students that are interested in IT security though, no idea how representative that is.

My recollection was it being taught during middle school, though me (and I think most of my classmates) weren't paying much attention and probably forgot much of it. In my case likely due to (later diagnosed) ADHD. But either way, most of that knowledge came of my own accord whenever it became relevant. I suspect that in these cases of foreigners knowing more about our government than their own is under similar circumstances. I wouldn't be surprised eastern europeans have this the worst in the form of iron curtain states pushing the message of "this is what it's like over there, see how bad it is? ours is better" with whatever that was at the time no longer existing, but that's pure speculation on my part.

Even now, I've been (re-)learning academic stuff from youtube videos of Neil Degrasse Tyson, Veritasium, or even outright history lectures from Sean Munger and Sarah Paine.

Ah, so "stupid" is what you are going for. Gotcha.

Which doesn't change anything. You guys used to make propaganda cartoons about exactly this during the 1960s even:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Have a look at history. I recommend the French revolution, in particular. Point is, you can keep people in poverty, but putting them there is something that rarely works on mass-scale. If it has ever worked at all.

Does that include getting out of American influence also?

Absolutely. And QUICKLY.

The issue is not whether the switches were moved. In the event of a dual engine shutdown, moving the switched off and then on - is the correct procedure to force a re-start. After a short delay for the second one, because electric power was lost, and the RAT only supplies enough power to start one at a time.

Suicidal pilots would not have restarted the engines!

The "did you do that?" comment had no indication of what "that" was that has been published. It is pretty clear that multiple actors are engaged in muddying the waters.

"The truth will out" - but possibly at 40,000 feet over the North Atlantic.

How many RATs does it take to power a data center? enquiring minds want to know!

I understamd how Americans fall for this nonsense, but Europe has a well developed railroad system and efficient short distance flights.

Why would the Europeans fall for this inefficient, ineffective, economically insane, dangerous, unproven, ridiculous scam?