They are already at the door of those who earn less and have less. What are you talking about?

If a society wants to reduce tax burdon on the poor or less wealthy, then you must impose tax on those that have wealth.

The burden of living is SIGNIFICANTLY less on those WITH money than those WITHOUT money.

A rich person is not giving the homeless a place to live, they are not giving them food, they are hording that money for no other reason than to flex.
Fact is, with a stronger middle class, a stronger economy exists. We learned this after WWII and its odd people dont know this.

Anyways....

I suppose one could argue that you want the more dselicate computers behind the pilot, since then it has the greatest achievable shielding on all sides without having excessive distance from the flight controls and without becoming inaccessible if the pod that is loaded into the middle is not traversible. Similar reasoning is used in Formula 1 - delicate bits of the car (such as the fuel tank) are placed between the driver and the engine, to keep them as safe as possible without creating a burden. This would necessitate there being a step down to get to the pilot's chair. It's not a particularly good piece of "lore repair" but it's the best I can do.

The nuclear waste silos were, though.

The feet operated as vertical rockets, so I'd say the designer was thinking along the same lines you are.

The landing pads are also vertical thrusters (which is how they can skim), so you need space for the nozzle, engine, and fuel. The size of the landing pads would seem fine, given everything that needs to be in them.

I'm calculating mass in terms of filled volume. The entire mid-section of the Eagle was a mesh of girders, rather than a solid hull. Since the total space filled is 1/Nth that of a solid hull that has to be able to handle the same rotational forces, the total mass is reduced. The cross-hatch patterning is likely to be good there, as it's strong along those lines. We don't need to specifically know what the material is, or the specific mass, as long as we can use engineering techniques to figure out the percentage of material we need relative to having a solid hull.

That's true of all sci-fi, by nature. The challenge, though, is to make it as plausible as possible. The "traditional" rule (variously ascribed to Arthur C Clarke and Isaac Asimov) was that good sci-fi was allowed to violate one law of physics (although this had to be justified and explained) but everything else shoud be as plausible as possible. S:1999, as a whole, certainly did not comply with that, but if we restrict ourselves to the Eagle, then I'd say that it would just about pass muster there.

There are many ways to manipulate markets, hence the large amount of laws and rules regulating it.

One is not better or worse than others, so nitpicking isnt exactly a solid argument to make.

Let's look at the various aspects of the Eagle design.

1. It was "designed to work in space" so wasn't designed to be aerodynamic
2. It was modular
3. Mass was kept to a minimum without compromising strength, which is precisely what you would want if your job is to carry a significant mass in space and be able to manoever without ripping apart
4. Cockpits were functional and minimal, not glamorous or more advanced than necessary to do the job

There were terrible aspects as well (nowhere to keep fuel, for example), but if you were going to design a sci-fi ship that is intended to be a simple short-range transport, then the design for the Eagle is close to perfect in a way that most sci-fi vessels really aren't.

Brian Johnson really did a superb job of actually making something LOOK like a practical workhorse.

So what? This is literally capitalism and because it comes from China, everyone is all baby about it?
Is this a problem? yes... but its also capitalism. you cant wave away "capitalism" when it benefits you, but not others and then be upset when others are benefiting and you are not.
This is more a problem for the companies to fix, but they wont, because US taxpayers will pay for the bail out, yet again while the correction of "capitalism" never happens due to it.
We are backwards on a lot of our policies and governance here, and the point of capitalism is looking a lot more like communism and Oligarch rule.

Socialized only to make sure they fail, not to provide for the general welfare.

The modern democratic party is quite right of center, and that's a problem. The Democratic party is an enormous fan of corporate welfare and subsidies for industries that are aligned with their talking points. There are still a few firebrands in the party, mostly centrists like AOC and Elizabeth Warren and possibly Bernie Sanders and Ilhan Omar, but they took suck at the teat of irresistible corruption.

And this is not a both sides argument. For there to be a both sides argument, there have to be two sides in opposition, and the truth is that there aren't.

The Brexit referendum in 2016 did NOT permit all British registered voters to vote. This was taken to court multiple times.

The number of people who were entitled to vote was very tightly restricted. Access to a polling station was limited. There were many factors that could result in you being excluded. Postal ballots were largely not permitted, even though they were officially allowed. If you were overseas at that precise moment, you couldn't vote. You had to specially register to vote for it, but the website (which not everyone could access, strangely enough) was only up erratically. Those in the Isle of Man, although full British citizens, were not permitted to vote, for example.

Not sure what you're looking at. I am interested in the subject because I have a lot teachers public and private school in the family.

Most of what I see out there suggests to me there is essentially no correlation between changes in per-pupil spend and outcomes. If you go back to the 70s, you can't go much further back because you don't have a lot of comparable standardized test results before then, and stop pre-pandemic, what you see nationally anyway is educational outcomes are very flat even while (inflation adjusted) per-pupil spend jumped.

When you dig down to individual states, and/or mega districts (LA, etc) you mostly see that again outcomes stay pretty flat even in periods, even when major reforms (big increases in spend or cuts were made) even as you scroll forward a decade or on the outcome side to account for student experience.

From what I can see within a very wide-band of education spending, there is little impact on outcomes. Critics will find all sorts of exceptions but as I said in my previous post usually they end up being outliers to begin with. Sure you increased spending and scores did go up but it was in place where they were well below the curve to start with. Or people will say see see they spent even more money and scores dropped, but you look into and it was a place that was previously over performing, suggesting other factors probably are in play.

Yeah honestly British and American literature were some of my favorite subjects in high school because we got read things like Jane Eyre, Emma, Frankenstein, Gatsby, Huck Fin, Red Badge of Courage, etc.

All of those are great because the language is pretty accessible even for a contemporary audience and you can absolutely immerse yourself in any of them. Never felt like work..