Honestly, you bellowing at the family that they need to run because you've only budgeted 5 minutes in your schedule for this rest stop sounds like much less of a vacation than a chilled out trip in an EV.
If work need me to go somewhere for a meeting they pay for a hire car to avoid insurance issues, or send me via public transport - why would you put miles on your own vehicle?
Here, what I've saved on buying petrol has paid for the car, so it's very much the case of people needing to do their own due diligence on how the numbers work out for them. As for range, the car has a better range than my bladder. The discussion surrounding EVs is indeed full of lies, but they mostly are not being told by the people who are saying that an EV worked out well for them.
The problem is not the goal. No Child Left Behind is perfectly reasonable. The issue is that there two different approaches to achieve this goal: you can lower the standards (cheap) or you can give stragglers the means to success (expensive). Guess what the typical politician will do.
Lowering the classroom standard to the lowest common denominator, does not create success. It creates a standard of mediocrity that races to the bottom as a goal.
Or you can take the intention of the project and focus on the word 'Left'. It shouldn't be about ensuring nobody is behind (impossible anyway) but about ensuring that nobody is LEFT behind purely because of their starting point. It's about not wasting talented students who just need a bit more extra attention to them for whatever reason. Not wasting resources is prudent conservatism.
1 year Software Engineering MSc for me, to turn the coding skills I'd learned as a physicist into something more formal. Project management and design skills, and then a broad spectrum of taster courses in languages, technologies, and topics - just enough to get you started if you went in that direction.
The removal of those tests helps those who have not been tutored to pass those specific tests ANS who also have the natural aptitude that will allow them to excel when they enter higher education. I've met students like that. The overall number may be small, but the number of students who benefit from the removal of that hurdle is non-zero. It's up to you to decide whether to treat them as acceptable losses.
What we actually need is a better method of selectively assessing who is ready for higher education. That's not a simple problem to solve.
Successfully dismantled government waste something something overreach something woke ideology something Biden
What makes you think there is any interest in balancing the budget? The aim is to continue to buy a stream of 'victories' that can be used to convince a power base to keep voting. Doesn't matter about the budget - you can blame that on whoever 'them' is today.
No idea why you are currently -1. Algorithmic targeting of people to push views that will swing them on wedge issues is absolutely what is causing the increase in polarisation and encouraging people to dismiss any fact that differs from their carefully curated stream of opinion reinforcement as 'fake news'.
The vast majority of adults do not fully understand the vast majority of the risks that they are exposed to every day.
However, on this specific topic you seem to agree that you'd need to be an adult to make an informed choice to use the technology and that information should be available warning you of the risks so that you can make an informed choice.
Anyone that looked first would realize that nearly every year since 1999 we've had more H1B visas than we've (at least on paper) created in terms of net-new IT jobs. Translation: all new jobs go to Indians: FUCK YOU Americans. The fat cats see us as a resource to milk and extract from but they damn sure don't want to pay American wages. Buy low using foreigners, sell high using American markets.
If all of the entrenched, senior IT folks like you unionised and went on strike until new hires were paid what you consider to be 'American wages', it would happen. Are you going to do that?
Well, not impossible. Some of us are still delivering multi-million contracts using GCC and a text editor, but yes it's increasingly rare to do something that's built entirely from your own source.
Due to the law of diminishing returns, wouldn't focussing on the lower quartile do more to improve average gains than focussing on the top quartile? Shouldn't also to 'top' be self-motivated and talented enough to improve their own performance?
Setup costs don't repeat, so the cost of follow-on years will differ. A large incoming lump sum also allows you to pay down debt, releasing money that would have gone on yearly interest payments, which provides more money in future years than the current budget.
So there are plenty of ways to fully-fund a new, on-going cost with a lump-sum windfall.
You've never been hired by a billionaire either. The closest you've come is to be hired by someone many ranks down the corporate structure from them, and across multiple faked levels of shell-companies and brand name licensing deals, that all ensure that the person who hired you pays their taxes, you pay your taxes, and the billionaire pays a far lower percentage rate of tax than you, if any at all.
This specific sort of taxation is punitive, though. I'm all for taxing an individual's earnings in proportion to how well the whole capitalism thing is working out for them, but changing the rules after-the-fact on income they've already been taxed on just feels too much like theft.
They haven't been taxed on it though. Their vast wealth makes tax avoidance methods available to them that aren't available to other people. Yes, those methods are largely legal. However if they had chosen not to exploit those loopholes, and it's usually very clear that it's a loophole, then these kind of measures wouldn't be necessary.
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
