It's not strange to see downvotes, IMO. Industry spends a tremendous amount of money and resources attacking our more sustainable energy future with rampant FUD. They want to milk their current infrastructure for as long as it's profitable for them.
Sowing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about alternative, more sustainable energy sources (and storage) has gone on for decades and has had a very pervasive, toxic effect on general discourse of the matters.
Some of the wording seems a bit too advanced to throw on a newbie right away. I would massage the content with a more relatable, visual representation:
>HTML is for adding meaning to raw content by marking it up.
HTML is the frame of the house.
>CSS is for formatting that marked up content.
CSS is the interior and exterior design of the house that's intertwined with the HTML framework.
>JavaScript is for making that content and formatting interactive.
JavaScript is the hardware door hinges, electrical and plumbing of the house that's also intertwined with HTML and CSS.
---------
I think graphical content that reinforces the above analogies would go a long way in helping newcomers to more quickly understand and remember the basic concepts.
Well, the fired worker who has cancer made a post where he thanked Ellen Pao and Reddit for paying for his COBRA insurance for up to a year after his firing. So, I'm not sure he was simply let go and that's that.
I'm not saying that Reddit isn't making mistakes, but I am glad that they at least finally tried to do something about the serious troll problems there.
I'm still waiting for a source that explains this mess without all the hyperbole and assumptions. However, I'm increasingly thinking that won't happen as it seems a lot of redditors have already made up their minds that this or that person is evil and this and that person is a godly saint.
I'd like to hear both sides of the stories, etc. before I make up my mind on this situation.
Obama needs to issue Snowden a pardon of some sort and allow this whistleblower to come home without fear of retribution for helping to defend our U.S. Constitution.
Legitimately question: Is that even possible if Snowden hasn't been charged with all of the crimes he could have been charged with? What I mean is that Obama's pardon power doesn't pardon an action, but rather specific violations of the law that prosecutors have brought against him. So what would stop people prosecuting him anyway even if he was pardoned but for other similar offenses?
Do you really think he could come back to the US without living in fear? Even if Obama pardons him officially, there may be many unhappy americans with weapons at home, who don't like what Snowden has done.
But an official pardon would allow him to settle everywhere, for example in Europe. That would certainly be helpful.
>the USA is one of the top spenders per student in the world.
People keep saying this, but they leave out the fact that it's not spent equally in all places. In poor neighborhoods, the schools there do NOT get the same amount of funding as they do in wealthier American nieghborhoods.
A friend of mine taught in a poor nieghborhood. She and I had to buy books and supplies for the kids because the damn school was so underfunded.
>People keep saying that, but they leave out the fact that the worst school districts--but urban ones--also have the highest per student spending.
It's hard to follow your jumbled sentence. However, it appears you're implying low income areas get the most funding.
That's a right-wing myth that's spewed from places like the Heritage Foundation when they attempt to profitably indoctrinate the public into privatizing schools, etc.
The truth of the matter is The Education Law Center has found that low-income public schools spend $3,000 less per student than their wealthier counterparts, amounting to $75,000 less per 25-student classroom, yet low-income districts contain many more students likely to have higher needs due to poverty, English Language Learner status, or disability.
So, if we are to examine the realities of the situation, we find that the kids with special needs who desperately need more funding -- often get less.
Also, if you've ever had personal experience within schools located in low-income neighborhoods as many teachers and myself have had, you'd know this very directly.
You can certainly find anomalies, but to prop up anomalies as the norm reeks of agenda instead of truth-seeking.
I should also mention that I agree that funding alone certainly isn't the only issue. How the funding is applied is very important as well. However, when funding is woefully short in the first place and kids don't have the materials and supplies they need for a proper education, we have a core problem there.
Looking at per-student is hard, though, since it requires adjusting a number of factors. There are the obvious things - cost of infrastructure, needing to pay more in salaries – but also some less obvious differences like the way the U.S. usually has the school system to pay for services which aren't directly related to education.
One major example is special-needs: a single kid who needs an aid or therapist drives up the average massively but that spending doesn't benefit their classmates at all, and urban districts tend to have more of them for various reasons. (This is also an interesting factor in the charter school debate: few of the accusations about cherry-picking students note that some cities don't give the charters the same extra funding for support services, creating a massive penalty for admitting each student)
Correct. Everyone conveniently forgets that there is NOT a 1:1 correlation between spending and results -- the variance is insane. Some districts spend very little and have great results, some districts spend ludicrous amounts of money and have very poor results.
That's a specific case where their client base literally does not care about the cost. $30,000 or $40,000 makes no difference to them.
Or, to take it further, it's quite likely a Veblen good: because only families that can shrug at $30,000 a year for private school will be going there, your kid will only associate with other rich kids, creating valuable romantic and professional networks.
That's a nice, oversimplified, right-wing talking point, but there also happens to be a huge disparity in per-pupil spending in Washington-area schools:
Also, The Education Law Center has found that low-income public schools overall spend $3,000 less per student than their wealthier counterparts, amounting to $75,000 less per 25-student classroom, yet low-income districts contain many more students likely to have higher needs due to poverty, English Language Learner status, or disability.
In other words, I'm sure the right-wing can cherry-pick anomalies (like they do with climate change, etc. and look like fools throwing snowballs on the Senate floor [3]) while disingenuously attempting to prop anomalies as "the norm", but the greater reality is that low-income areas tend to get less funding for students overall -- and, it's a problem.
I'll be impressed when Netflix finally opens up enough to allow it to work with Kodi without having to jump through mindless Chrome hoops to make Netflix (barely) work with it.
Then again, Kodi already works great with pirated movies, maybe I should stop paying Netflix and just use what works minus all the needless hassle?
I think it's safe to say GM didn't exactly clean up its act after the early 2000's. If I did that same thing with my small business, I'd probably be charged with manslaughter by gross negligence... or perhaps outright murder since I knowingly allowed innocent people to die in order to rake in more cash.
Every death and injury caused by those ignition switch failures was a tragedy. The attitude of the managers involved was wrong. The technical understanding of the complete system was unacceptable. It should not have taken as long as it did, and the defects should not have left the planning process, much less the plant.
That being said, I do still think that the course was changing. The ignition switch in question was designed in 1997. Vehicles are hideously complicated; Conway's Law[1] would indicate that the organizations involved would also be hideously complicated, and they are! The Valukas report mentioned above calls out specific shortcomings in this regard.
If your small business produced vehicles on the scale of GM, I would be very very surprised!
That's a very corporate shill way of putting it. Their actions were murderous. They let people DIE.
Do you not GET THIS somehow or are you attempting to gloss over this issue?
>If your small business produced vehicles on the scale of GM, I would be very very surprised!
Please don't be disingenuous with artful dodging. You're not smart enough to get away with that with me, sorry. I'm VERY OBVIOUSLY not discussing an issue of complexity, I was discussing an issue of ethics and morality.
It's an issue where GM knew they were killing people and did nothing about it for a long time because it wasn't profitable.
No wonder the GM corporate culture is so twisted. You're trying to turn this around as an attack on my supposedly "simple" business instead of owning up to the fact you work for a scummy corporation that killed people in the name of the almighty buck.
You may not want to face that fact and instead go running to another wikipedia link on humorous adages in hopes of distraction, but I'm not falling for it, guy.
People are dead because of your company's lack of ethics. GET IT?
If your goal here is to be public relations for GM, you're failing miserably and I suggest you move along. You're just making me resent GM even more. If you were my PR person, I'd fire you for incompetence.
I find it interesting when there's research that doesn't happen to be funded (indirectly or otherwise) by industry, it often ends up exposing potential dangers that all the other studies somehow missed completely.
Then again, there's much less incentive to use industry-friendly, stunted methodologies when one doesn't have industry footing the bill directly or by proxy.
And, on that note:
"... Most US research on glyphosate, Benbrook added, has focused on the chemical in isolation. But in the real world, glyphosate is mixed with other chemicals, called surfactants and adjuvants, that enhance their weed-slaying power. Importantly, some of the research used in the WHO assessment came from outside the US and looked at real-world herbicide formulations. ... "
