It's copied from The Atlantic, and right away, the opinion author's assertions run into trouble.

"For the overwhelming majority of graduates, the returns on going to college more than offset the cost of tuition. ". That's news to all the grads drowning in debt they'll never pay off.

"After factoring in financial aid, the cost of attending a public four-year college has fallen by more than 20 percent since 2015, even before adjusting for inflation." What? Seriously?

Many more things like that. And she never even addresses the issue of enrollment now being overwhelmingly female, with majors that are money losers in the job markets. Nor does she address the fact that a growing number of students are foreign, sent here by their families or governments to gain technical and business knowledge to take back home after graduation. The whole thing reads like a PR piece for colleges.

Negative, Ghostrider. While standard support is up, HPE has an extended support system called "mature support" covering HP 9000 and Integrity servers until 2028, including HP-UX support . So it's not truly dead just yet.

Everyone that buys Windows licenses from those El Cheapo Google Marketplace vendors has to as the licenses tend to be pro licenses pulled from machines that won't activate over MS's web method.

It's not an education if you only assign stuff "relevant to their lives" (which is a crapshoot decision in any case; what books are really going be relevant to modern teenagers?). Part of what you're supposed to be getting in school is knowledge of the foundations of your civilization, which is why colleges have a Great Books program in the first place. High Schools typically don't burden students with all that many difficult old books anyway. I had to suffer through Wuthering Heights but I also got to discover Lord of the Flies.

Might it be that the Beeb relies on groups like the Spectator for guests as an opposite to it's own party line, and thus drive the outrage demo to boost ratings? A' La the old CNN crossfire route? What else would they do? Bring on, say, the Guardian every night and basically just agree on everything?

The daily format, yes. The Internet has killed that.

But I think there's still some room for print journalism under certain conditions, and profitably so as well, if done right.

Many moons ago, I used to get the Washington Post's Weekly Edition. I don't know if they do it anymore, but it was a newspaper, mailed to your home once a week, that had longer, more in-depth investigative stories and analysis on the issues of the day than you'd find in the daily papers, as well as an opinion and editorial section. I think something along these lines, combined with certain elements of the old Sunday paper format... cartoons, ads, local events and notices, arts coverage.... could sell as part of a larger digital subscription that gives you daily access.

Experience only matters if you make a new version. Otherwise the experience has no value. The patents are only useful if enforcable, and if they provide defensive value against companies they don't already have defense against, orif the category becomes big enough to leverage against others who do succeed. Seeing as they shut down production, it's unlikely they will create a new version anytime soon. There's not enough demand. They have an extensive patent portfolio, so the defensive value is questionable. The offensive value is also negligible, as they're unlikely to get much out of it given the lack of success in the category. So no, not a good return.

Its useless. It doesn't do anything anyone needs or wants. Which is why VR headsets have failed in the market repeatedly, and at much cheaper pricepoints. That's why it's not a fantastic value- it's no better than existing tech, it doesn't solve a problem, nobody wants the category, and it's priced at nearly 10x the competition. On every front it's the exact opposite of value.

WHat were there expectations? If they were much higher, then it's a disappointment. If it was inline, then it isn't. How much did they spend in R&D on the device? Again, if it was a net loss, it's a disappointment. If it was a profit, it might not be. (A loss might also be ok if it launches a category that becomes successful, but this doesn't seem to be the case here).

Given that they shut down manufacturing, it seems very likely they sold way under expectation and overbuilt capacity. It also seems likely in that case they lost money. Which would make this a disappointment.

I do disagree- it's frequently prohibited by the contracts you sign to get the options. It has been for every startup I've ever worked for.

They probably can't. There's limitations on the ability to sell pre-IPO options. Both legal limitations with SEC regs, and limitations by the terms of the agreement that gives them the options. Not being allowed to sell them at all pre-IPO unless given explicit permission by the company is pretty much universal. The company doesn't want to risk a hostile takeover via random entities buying stock options.

They can't sell those stock options on the open market. It's unlikely they are allowed to sell them at all right now. Even if they go IPO, they will likely be locked in for a significant period. And given the rate the company is burning money, it's highly unlikely to fetch anything near it's last valuation when it does go public. It's likely to fetch a fraction of that (and just going bankrupt is a distinct possibility). So yeah, when you're paying monopoly money you can give really high numbers. In the end, they will likely have made more working at any non-startup big tech company.

More to the point, dating apps already suck for young men. It's hard enough for them to get a match of any kind, and the apps are notorious for women ghosting men or going out with men just to get a free meal or monetary favor of some kind. Now imagine finding out that the only reason a woman goes out with you was to use you for your work connections. How is this not a kind of catfishing or fraud?

I tell my sons to avoid these apps like the plague. This kind of stuff only reinforces that.

I don't disagree, but all that ignores the fact the the problem with schools is the student body itself: there are too many walking the halls that belong in reform school instead of real school.

We've had "easy access to guns" for 250 years. High Schools used to have firing ranges and shooting teams (including girls shooting teams). It was not uncommon to see rifle racks in the back windows of trucks in my high school parking lot. Somehow we managed to not shoot anyone. What's changed is the introduction of ghetto thug culture into schools. If you had a problem with a guy when I was in school, you arranged to meet out back after 3 PM and settle it with fists. Now kids "pop a cap" into students and teachers for "dissing" them. Then there's the constant, roving gang fights in schools, typically with a bunch of kids cornering one kid and beating him bloody, all while recording it on their phones and bragging.

It's ironic, because in the 1970's, French philosopher Michel Foucault kicked up a storm when he wrote that, architecturally, schools looked like prisons because they served a similar function. Modern school systems are buying mass surveillance systems precisely because modern students act like prison gangs, and have to be managed the same way.