I don't have to let trump stand on my front porch and scream lies at top volume, and twitter doesn't either. Twitter is protected by the first amendment here, not trump.
Twitter's platform is private, not public. Twitter should waste no more time in making that crystal clear.
If you own the printing press, you get to decide what you print. If it were otherwise -- if the government, or anyone else, could control what we said and didn't say with our private resources -- well, that's not anywhere any of us really wants to live.
in states with good public universities, the best value is 2 years at a good community college, then 2 years at the state school. even 2 years at a good state university is getting ridiculously expensive ($60K+).
From others experience it's 2 years at good community college and 2.5-3 years at the good state university. I've yet to see state college take all the credits from a transfer.
admittedly i don't have first-hand experience in this, but my understanding from friends & family here in CA is that limiting time at a state university to 2 years (and sometimes less) is entirely possible, with some planning.
the confounding factor for young adults, i suppose, is that it's hard to be certain enough about future interests amid all the possibilities not yet forgone to stay the course without (understandable) alteration (i changed course a few times in college myself).
UIUC is 25k a year just tuition and fees. Expensive college town room & board plus opportunity cost of education instead of working easily gets you to 30k a year.
The legislature passed a budget every year under Rauner, he refused to sign it because he wanted anti-union runners. Agreed it's been a long time coming though, definitely not just Rauner's fault.
Certainly not an option for everyone, but a ton of people in my state school class still lived at home. A good percentage could have lived at home but chose not to.
It's also hard for me to include housing because you'd need housing no matter what path in life you choose.
I think it may do the subject (the interviewee) a service to take a skeptical approach as the interviewer in a situation where many readers will bring a lot of skepticism. If the interviewer seems _too_ friendly, many readers will dismiss the responses and not listen as carefully as they might otherwise. It seems like a justifiable approach to me here.
If the scientist was wrong, he was wrong for reasons that were more subtle and complicated than the objections the author thought of. A better option would be to have organized a debate between two scientists who were both already experts. There's also a difference between skepticism and unfriendliness: the author came across as unfriendly, while a scientist who could not be so easily knocked back might have been able to keep it to skepticism.
The debt load will be severe. The US doesn't have a balanced budget, has a growing deficit at all levels (federal, state, municipal), and politicians are promising "free college", when we have bigger issues (child poverty, homelessness, healthcare, DEBT)?
First off it's illegal for them to use genetic information in health insurance decisions in the US.
If it were legal and they did want to do it then why would they need to buy 23andMe to accomplish this? Instead they'd just refuse to insure you without you providing a sample of your DNA.
Don't give em ideas man. Next thing you know, your premium goes up by X% because you're predisposed to having an addictive personality and deemed at risk to becoming an alcoholic/opiate/etc. addict.
I understand this thinking. I think, though, that the more we understand about cognition (and sleep and health in general and its impact on thinking), the more we'll tend toward somewhat lighter hours (more like 30-40 hours a week even in a startup situation). Not because we can get away with it, but because the output is actually superior.
From a business strategy standpoint, my experience has been that sometimes companies try to compensate for poor strategy by piling on the hours. To me, it's like trying to do push ups to solve math problems faster.
Similarly, I have noticed that strategic structural soundness is vastly more important than hours worked. When the structure is there, all your efforts are leveraged many times over such that, effectively, 30 hours a week becomes more like 300.
Hard work is important and satisfying but duration is not the real measure we should look at, imo.
If promoting voting or identifying the disinformation campaigns of nation states is considered bias, than consider me happily labeled. However, I think there's something categorically different about such tools as they are not so much promoting a specific outcome as allowing for a more representative outcome, aka a functioning democracy where people are exchanging ideas not click rates.
Our representative democracy is setup as a two party system (first past the post elections) if we want a more representative outcome we should switch to a direct democracy or implement the alternative vote.
Free exchange of ideas is my ultimate goal but the average voter doesn't share this goal, they get their information from "authoritative" sources such as "their" party or the mass media.
We did have a vote to bring in the alternate vote but every major party (left and right) and media outlet (left and right) slammed it as anti-democratic.
We can't depend on the average voter to get informed and vote representatively because the system intentionally prevents this.
Yup don't really care what the new vote is. I live in Northern Ireland where we have single transferable vote I think its great.
It hasn't fixed our two party system but I have noticed a dramatic change in the way people think about voting.
For the most part people no longer feel the need to vote against some one and now vote for who they want, I have also noticed people seem to feel their vote is worth more as a result.
Twitter's platform is private, not public. Twitter should waste no more time in making that crystal clear.
If you own the printing press, you get to decide what you print. If it were otherwise -- if the government, or anyone else, could control what we said and didn't say with our private resources -- well, that's not anywhere any of us really wants to live.