I can tell that you have no idea what you're talking about because the vast majority of public K-12 school funding is through local taxes, not federal funding. The federal government has almost no control over it so they can't cut funding. If you look at the actual spending on a per pupil basis it's gone up significantly in red and blue areas alike.

The percentage of students enrolled in private schools tends to be slightly higher in blue states as well. The biggest private schools tend to be Catholic (or other religious) schools that aren't that expensive. There are also many states that have charter schools that perform better for less money than the public schools, so it's not a money problem.

The U.S. should invest in expanding the number of charter schools. The real problem is that the public school system has very little competition and therefore no reason to improve. When Sweden expanded charter schools they found that the public schools performed better as well because they had to provide better service.

When all children are left behind, no child is left behind. The system has become too paralyzed in trying (and failing) so hard to never fail a student or even make them feel like they might be, that they're failing all of the students collectively.

If that were the case why wouldn't they already have done this? It's less expensive to hire an Indian working and living in India than it is to hire an Indian H-1B worker in the U.S.

I don't think that they ever will invade because Taiwan might retaliate and blow up the Three Gorges Dam. The devastation that would cause isn't worth gaining control of Taiwan. Instead they'll try to exert soft power to gain control in a more diplomatic fashion. Even if they believed Taiwan couldn't pull that off or that they could stop any attempt, any invasion doesn't guarantee control of valuable resources. Im sure TSMC has someone whose job it is to take a hammer to all of the machines if an invasion occurs. Being willing to destroy the things your enemy wants to seize and letting them know that you'll do it can also do a lot to dissuade aggressive actions as well.

China isn't stupid and after spending the last several years watching Russia destroy itself as much as Ukraine, I can't imagine they're looking to put themselves into a similar situation.

Making something small and compact can easily be more expensive than a product without those constraints. The resolution on most phone displays is close to as good as that on many laptops or even desktop displays. It's more difficult and hence more expensive to make a high PPI touchscreen display for a phone than to make a larger desktop monitor with the same resolution. Boards don't need to cram everything into as small of a space either. A laptop doesn't need to contain a cellular modem/baseband either.

Apple already makes iPads that are much larger than their phones, but also cost much less. I'm more surprised that they would do this because it means that they're cannibalizing some of their own Mac sales that are sure to have better margins. Their phone SoCs aren't that much less expensive than their basic M-series SoCs. Either these are compromising a lot on less expensive components across the board and are being positioned as a more expensive iPad replacement or they think they can sell enough of these to make up for lost profit from purchases of other Mac models.

You're not wrong, but this is a website populated mostly by that 1%. I suspect that most of the people here do upgrade components or build their own PCs from parts.

You'd have to pay me to take it. I don't like ads on my television or my computer, so why would I want them anywhere that never not existed previously? If they are willing to pay me, then I'll take a few million fridges. If they were free, I'd take them as well. They'd look lovely lining the ravine near my house.

Outside of a very small community (of which I am a member) this won't even register as a problem, let alone motivate a sizeable number of people to do anything about it. Our species lacks the will to even stop literally poisoning ourselves.

Liberals are fairly consistent in defending people's right to their faith while speaking out against people who want to impose their faith on others.

It has nothing to do with investment in trains or not but a tolerance for allowing people who cause trouble to use them. There are countries with far older rail infrastructure that I would use over American public transit. Those countries won't put up with some crackhead or meth addict terrorizing other patrons. The U.S. doesn't want to incarcerate these people or believes doing so is either cruel or unjust and dumps them right back out into society.

There's no point in investing anything in public transportation when the people who will destroy it remain unpunished. Meanwhile in countries like Japan you'd get rude looks for talking on the phone on a train. That alone keeps most people's behavior in check, but they will fine people who act out of line if necessary. The only way it would work in the U.S. is for a private company to run the service so that they can kick people out who don't follow the rules. The public transit systems trend towards becoming the most tragic sort of commons.

I don't care how nice the train (bus, etc.) is if I have to sit next to a strung out druggie that’s acting like a schizophrenic. Contrast this with air travel where people will be kicked off flights for being drunk and disorderly and barred from flying again if they're enough of an ass. The politicians who tax us to pay for public transit rarely use it themselves, so what do they care how miserable the experience is? They won't ban the crackhead because that crackhead might vote for someone else.

People in Europe or Japan would quit riding the rail if it were overrun with the mentally ill drug addicts that the U.S. does little to nothing about. That's why we can't have nice things and until we fix that, nothing will change.

I'm not sure what the unions actually gained. Suppose some drivers did want to unionize. What prevents others from joining the platform and undercutting them without joining or from Uber/Lyft from doing what they should have from the beginning and let each individual driver set their own rate and letting the market decide what a ride should cost.

It's been reported that Trump was overheard by anonymous sources saying, "I'll have those Zoomers voting Republican for 200 years," as he executed a meeting.

This has been going on long before Trump. The only difference is that previously some third party company would buy the data and provide this service to law enforcement. The only difference here is that there's no middleman and the government is buying the data to process directly.

The ultimate problem is that while there are certain things the government cannot do or data it cannot collect without a warrant, there's nothing preventing private companies from collecting the same data. In many cases there are government laws that require collecting and retaining some of that data.

Neither party is ever going to close that loophole because both recognize how useful it is. I think the only way to prevent government abuse of this data is to prevent private companies from either collecting the information or retaining longer than necessary to complete some business transaction. That immediately destroys many companies outright or eliminates their primary business model, so expect them to be against it as much as the government. The average citizen doesn't understand the problem and of those who do, a sizable amount don't care that all of their data is being collected. They want to like each other's photos or shitpost about the latest thing.

If the founding fathers could have anticipated the kind of technology that would enable this sort of thing I think they would have crafted the Bill of Rights in a way to prevent the government from doing what it's doing now, but I don't think anyone in the 1700's could have reasonably been expected to foresee the kinds of massive databases of information that computers enable at very little cost. It would require a constitutional amendment to fix this, but once again I don't think enough people, Democrat or Republican care. There are few people who are willing to pay extra for privacy either and that makes it difficult for companies that don't violate your privacy and sell your data to compete against those that do.

Why are you giving them any of that information to begin with? The difference between now and then is that now it's spelled out in the user agrees that you and everyone else clicked through when they signed up. If the company tells you that they're going to pump your ass to anyone who'll pay and you agree to it, I'm not sure how much shame I ought to heap upon the company. If you don't like social media selling your personal information, then stay the hell off social media.

I think the point is that making exploits near impossible for an individual actor to discover means only well funded organizations or nations will be able to afford being in the business. State actors are a lot less likely to make vulnerabilities widespread like mercenary actors. That doesn't save everyone from exploits, but it does make the average user less likely to be the target.

The real question is how much of a performance tradeoff is this or if there's some other catch.