There’s a lot to be said for community college transfers, testing out of credits etc from a purchaser perspective. While that can help individual students I don’t think it addresses larger problems about rising costs in the academic sector and the fact that high costs make planning and attending colleges a high cost, moderate risk proposition.

For instance, an ideal college system would reduce need for corporations to request h1b visas

The level of bureacracy (both for students and institutions) required to maintain so many grant and voucher systems including secondary bureacratic patchworks like H1b visas could all be drastically reduced by subsidizing college tuiton prices across the board to the point where college costs were less of a financial burden.

One might argue that eliminating tuition costs entirely would pay for itself in reduced bureacratic burden across the government and would make it easier for corporations to retrain employees rather than importing them.

Realistically though, lets set aside unions as they are at best irrelevant to any real discussion of education and at worst simply the subject of cold war hyperfixation and irrational fear.

What is a real cost saving measure that could be brought to education?

Technology fees, subscriptions and infrastruction are, for instance, a major cost burden that has arisen in the last 40 years during the course of time where educational costs have skyrocketed. Why don’t I ever see conservatives talking about reducing educational technology costs?

There is a similar problem with legal and administrative costs as well.

What monetary evidence have you seen that makes you think unions are the most expensive barrier to education?

All the evidence I’ve seen has shown education costs have outpaced even CEO/administrative pay (one of the highest rising costs in society, dwarfing even housing inflation.)

Chalking it up to unions and union workers (whose pay is often rising at inflation rates or below) seems a bit absurd.

To use a metaphor its like saying we should address a sinking ship by opening an umbrella on the roof to deflect rain instead of finding and sealing the actual holes. Maybe the rain adds to the water but shouldn’t we be discussing the hole first: rising cost of living and administrative costs.

The hyperfixation on eliminating unions while ignoring real problems and costs seems less like ‘conservative fiscal responsibility’ and more like ‘2011 Scott Walker corruption ideology’

You certainly can’t delete them all but its possible to rename everything and delete them that way but If I recall windows would likely generate new versions very quickly after some very weird error messages and maybe a restart.

You understood “open borders” is subject to wildly different interpretations yet you still used it because it represents what you want to convey the best: Your personal feelings.

There’s no way to measure the following as they are weasel words for people’s feelings because they represent goals or thresholds nobody agrees on and people can always say they’re upset about them regardless of measurable outcomes.

• border patrol ‘adequacy’
• ‘openness’ of borders
• ‘mass migration’

There’s way to measure:

• legal immigration numbers
• misdemeanor border crossings
• costs and results of border enforcement
• asylum seekers and rejection rates
• tourist crossings
• visa types and issues
• immigration quotas
• visa and tourist overstays
• enforcement actions

Which measurable outcomes are you actually upset about?

So what you’re saying is “open borders” is used to describe a “feeling” you have about the border. Its not a factual description, its not an objective description, its an emotional invokation of a feeling you have regarding the border and like tourists from mexico or something.

Excuse me but could you explain what an “open border policy” even is? Are you talking about visas for skilled labor? Is this something to do with migrant seasonal labor? Refugee programs?

What the fuck are you even talking about? There’s not a single goddamn country in the world that meets the criteria for some definitions of “open borders” and other defitions are met by every single country on earth.

Supporting or not supporting “open borders” is not a political stance because there’s no meaning to the words, its nonsense.

I mean the problem with your critique is its dishonest: prominent right wingers like elon musk promote white genocide conspiricies. Every one of those fake ass conspiricies I mentioned has been stated by a prominent republican.

In order to “balance the scales” you have to embark on campaign of finding like online commenters or drunk kids on the street to get the same level of insanity of belief on the left. Then you have to pretend like actual prominent people are saying these things on the left. Which they aren’t.

All you’re doing is saying that you are willing to argue against reality in order to pander to liars and comfort them.

Please don’t throw rocks at my transparent walls!

‘Right wing sources’ are just lies at this point: white genocide, taxing rich people is communism, climate change isn’t real, women don’t deserve rights because god doesn’t recognize them as human, more cops make society safer, more prisons make society more free, more gun sales make society safer, trans people commit every crime and are the cause of every economic failed policy, the global elites (billionaires) are going to help us fight the real global elites (college kids, moms).

Like idk man I just don’t see a way anyone honest can make the claim that factuality is not politically aligned. If you want facts you have to bias towards facts, if that creates a political bias, that’s a problem for politicians not people interested reality.

Once you start trying to pander to all political groups you’ve abadoned factuality.

“this man is investing in making kids smarter rather than making my stock portfolio increase by an additional 0.0001% and this makes him an existential threat to society”

-NY Post, translated from news editese

Its also why pricefixing is illegal.

I feel like #3 no longer exists for anything in the US economy. You get one product in each niche either owned by 3 companies whose executives all have lunch together (egg farms, meat, ram manufacturers, etc) or where its just absolutely so black boxed its unclear what the product actually is (windows, google, ai etc)

“game does not run when computer is placed underwater”

Here’s the map. I think outside the midwest its mainly republican controlled states that still have the policies.

I think it might be democratic states tend to also have ballot initiatives and those are a major vessel for these kinds of reforms.

So while its maybe not partisan the policies that allow it to get removed are more likely to be partisan.

Or how roads they drive on are built.

I think the point is that republicans have put those laws in place. They may hate them but it certainly undermines the narrative that republicans are going to “save people” from “socialism”.

Also most places that don’t have state liquor stores are places that democrats got into power and dissolved the state liquor store system.

🔥🔥🔥

Bad news about FF4…

Free as in anime.