Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Kinda disappointed for Gaetz to withdraw, since I'm figuring whoever comes next will be more dangerous.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Kinda disappointed for Gaetz to withdraw, since I'm figuring whoever comes next will be more dangerous.

It's going to be Hulk Hogan or Rob Schneider.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Kinda disappointed for Gaetz to withdraw, since I'm figuring whoever comes next will be more dangerous.

I'm resigned to Paxton, which sucks because on top of being a horrible person, the office he runs is horrible. It used to be the AGs were some of the best lawyers in the state. They had interesting work and were outstanding trial lawyers. But turnover since Paxton has been so bad, they'll take whoever they can get now. I was at a dinner last year with one, and he was the most senior in his section. He'd graduated six years ago. I've talked to agency lawyers who have had to spoon feed their AGs through cases. I've heard of AGs who just left mid-case without telling their clients.

And they're ideological now, which wasn't the case previously. In June, someone's out of office proudly stated that they were not in the office that day because of a declared holiday to celebrate the second anniversary of Dobbs.

And this is just the run of the mill stuff, not the whole-senior-staff-resigned-en-masse-and-then-sued-and-got-a-$3-million-settlement-which-kicked-off-an-impeachment-by-fellow-republicans-thing. Which I'm guessing is a selling point.

Otoh, as far as I know, his scandals are run-of-the-mill corruption scandals and not sex scandals, unless you count his wife being a state senator who led the charge to not convict him in the impeachment. There may have been sexual services exchanged there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I'm resigned to Paxton, which sucks because on top of being a horrible person, the office he runs is horrible. It used to be the AGs were some of the best lawyers in the state. They had interesting work and were outstanding trial lawyers. But turnover since Paxton has been so bad, they'll take whoever they can get now. I was at a dinner last year with one, and he was the most senior in his section. He'd graduated six years ago. I've talked to agency lawyers who have had to spoon feed their AGs through cases. I've heard of AGs who just left mid-case without telling their clients.

And they're ideological now, which wasn't the case previously. In June, someone's out of office proudly stated that they were not in the office that day because of a declared holiday to celebrate the second anniversary of Dobbs.

And this is just the run of the mill stuff, not the whole-senior-staff-resigned-en-masse-and-then-sued-and-got-a-$3-million-settlement-which-kicked-off-an-impeachment-by-fellow-republicans-thing. Which I'm guessing is a selling point.

Otoh, as far as I know, his scandals are run-of-the-mill corruption scandals and not sex scandals, unless you count his wife being a state senator who led the charge to not convict him in the impeachment. There may have been sexual services exchanged there.

Pam Bondi

Could be worse, I guess.

[Hank Chinaski]

On LinkedIn I got a job opportunity for a Trial Judge position at the Patent Office- remote.

Are you not reading the news whoever generates the USPTO’s help wanted ads?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

The government bails out businesses all the time, e.g., banks, airlines. Why can't it bailout taxpayers? As George Will described the bailouts: “Here comes capitalism without risk: profits private, losses socialized.”

The concept is fine, in fact, it's preferred. Bailing out the people who'll spend money rather than affluent sorts who'll just save it (the usual trickle down route) is beneficial to all involved.

The problem is timing. People who graduate in difficult economic times get bailed out while others do not? How do you bail out the class of 2024 and not, say, 2032?

And since they're putting income limits on it, how do you bail out the kid who took anthropology and can't find a job and not the one who studied engineering and makes $100k a couple years out?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Harris tried to reach out to the non-traditional education route people too.

Free community college has been a Democratic policy priority for at least two presidential cycles. I don't know about where you live, but here, Houston Community College is the route to a lot of the trade and health certifications.

From the platform:

Free community college, particularly for certifications for trades, is a great policy, and one we should follow.

But it doesn't aid the guy who's already put in the hard sweat equity, and perhaps paid for his schooling for his certification, and taken on the risk of bank loans to start his business. He's left to wonder, along with most of the rest of us, why a certain slice of kids who happened through the system at the right time (when college debt forgiveness became a hot button issue) get a discharge, while he does not.

And as one who supports college debt forgiveness in principle (not really principle, but more as an economic policy that will aid the economy by strengthening would-be consumers) I don't have a compelling answer to that critique.

The only way to do college debt forgiveness fairly would be to make it available to all graduates from now on going forward, and give a commensurate tax benefit to all individuals who did not go to college.

The real conversation IMO involves finding a way to compel academia to run itself like a real business. Currently, it has no skin in the game. However poorly it polices costs, however profligately it spends, a new pipeline of student loan money refills its coffers each fall. Clawbacks are necessary, as is taxation of endowments, at a minimum, but they're just a small fraction of a much broader necessary overhaul of higher education.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Free community college, particularly for certifications for trades, is a great policy, and one we should follow.

But it doesn't aid the guy who's already put in the hard sweat equity, and perhaps paid for his schooling for his certification, and taken on the risk of bank loans to start his business. He's left to wonder, along with most of the rest of us, why a certain slice of kids who happened through the system at the right time (when college debt forgiveness became a hot button issue) get a discharge, while he does not.

And as one who supports college debt forgiveness in principle (not really principle, but more as an economic policy that will aid the economy by strengthening would-be consumers) I don't have a compelling answer to that critique.

The only way to do college debt forgiveness fairly would be to make it available to all graduates from now on going forward, and give a commensurate tax benefit to all individuals who did not go to college.

The real conversation IMO involves finding a way to compel academia to run itself like a real business. Currently, it has no skin in the game. However poorly it polices costs, however profligately it spends, a new pipeline of student loan money refills its coffers each fall. Clawbacks are necessary, as is taxation of endowments, at a minimum, but they're just a small fraction of a much broader necessary overhaul of higher education.

Or make it free school for people who take a job there's no candidates for.

But the problem with advertising free bailouts/school for on set of people, is the other set will just vote for leopards who eat faces out of spite.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The real conversation IMO involves finding a way to compel academia to run itself like a real business. Currently, it has no skin in the game. However poorly it polices costs, however profligately it spends, a new pipeline of student loan money refills its coffers each fall. Clawbacks are necessary, as is taxation of endowments, at a minimum, but they're just a small fraction of a much broader necessary overhaul of higher education.

This is nonsense. There are (small) parts of academia that run themselves like real businesses. They don't do academia well. The reasons for this should be pretty obvious. Academic institutions are not profit-maximizing enterprises. They create public goods with obvious value, but value which mostly cannot be captured and monetized by the institutions. Asking them to run themselves like real businesses is just as misguided as asking that government run itself like a real business (and note that the people who say this are also the people who don't ever want the government to raise its prices to them, something businesses do all the time, which is a tell that the ask is a performative gesture, not a serious idea).

IMO, the problem with much of academia is that they have been increasingly captured by the administrations, which expands its own share of their resources without contributing much of anything to education and research.

eta: Top schools should be trying to figure out how to leverage technology to educate more students, but instead they are content to maintain their current size, since that helps maintain their prestige -- a way in which the schools diminish their mission for the benefit of the people working there. You can argue that a school like Harvard is essentially an endowment fund with an educational sideline, and its board can certainly decide to do that if it wants to, but it's particularly irritating to see state schools engaging in this conduct.

[Icky Thump]

This Thanksgiving

Let us give thanks for our ancestors finding a land, inviting some hospitable natives for a feast.

Then killing them all and taking their shit.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

This is nonsense. There are (small) parts of academia that run themselves like real businesses. They don't do academia well.

I'm not talking about for profit colleges. I'm talking about imposition of cost controls.

The reasons for this should be pretty obvious. Academic institutions are not profit-maximizing enterprises. They create public goods with obvious value, but value which mostly cannot be captured and monetized by the institutions. Asking them to run themselves like real businesses is just as misguided as asking that government run itself like a real business (and note that the people who say this are also the people who don't ever want the government to raise its prices to them, something businesses do all the time, which is a tell that the ask is a performative gesture, not a serious idea).

Part of delivering that "public good" is operating in a responsible manner that doesn't turn a significant portion of the public that takes on debt to acquire this good into a serf.

IMO, the problem with much of academia is that they have been increasingly captured by the administrations, which expands its own share of their resources without contributing much of anything to education and research.

Agreed. They're like hospital systems. Too many layers of superfluous middle managers.

eta: Top schools should be trying to figure out how to leverage technology to educate more students, but instead they are content to maintain their current size, since that helps maintain their prestige -- a way in which the schools diminish their mission for the benefit of the people working there.

You like Galloway, I assume. He beats this drum on Pivot endlessly. I agree with this.

You can argue that a school like Harvard is essentially an endowment fund with an educational sideline, and its board can certainly decide to do that if it wants to, but it's particularly irritating to see state schools engaging in this conduct.

Given the high pricing, and loss of brand status and perceived ROI among selective private institutions, a lot of students who'd normally go private are seeking state school admissions. Particularly in the South (I'm not sure exactly why, but I assume the South is seen as a future growth area). They're just doing what the private schools did years ago.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

IMO, the problem with much of academia is that they have been increasingly captured by the administrations, which expands its own share of their resources without contributing much of anything to education and research.

This, coupled with financialization. We exploit kids by convincing them it is okay to borrow against their future earning in ever growing amounts, enriching administration on the back of almost literal children.

When the public paid for public school, that wasn't possible.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not talking about for profit colleges. I'm talking about imposition of cost controls.

Part of delivering that "public good" is operating in a responsible manner that doesn't turn a significant portion of the public that takes on debt to acquire this good into a serf.

I don't understand what you are suggesting or arguing, so maybe you could explain.

Given the high pricing, and loss of brand status and perceived ROI among selective private institutions, a lot of students who'd normally go private are seeking state school admissions. Particularly in the South (I'm not sure exactly why, but I assume the South is seen as a future growth area). They're just doing what the private schools did years ago.

I don't see any loss of brand status or perceived ROI among selective private institutions. The selective ones are only getting harder to get into.

Your answer here implies that you think public schools are acting like profit-maximizing businesses in trying to grow, but I thought we just agreed with Scott Galloway that that's not how those administrations are acting.

I grew up in the Northeast and live in California now, and the two areas are dramatically different in attitudes towards public schools. In the East, the best schools are almost all private schools, and the college admissions game is a process of sorting out the status ranking of the various schools and then where you as an applicant fit in that hierarchy. In California, there just aren't that many private schools, and most people are much less hung up on the status significance of the choice. Also, it's much more common to go to a two-year school and then transfer to a UC.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In the East, the best schools are
almost all private schools

I have no idea what you two are talking about, so I’ll just make 1 point. “Best” is subjective. My son played HS basketball. Detroit Metro is the second most segregated area in the country. I’ve seen the boy’s basketball team from every HS. Lots are 11 or 10 white kids, maybe 1 or 2 black kids. Or 11 or 12 black kids. My son’s team was 50% each, and the school also diverse with Asians including Middle Eastern, and also economically diverse. That is how I define the “best.”

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I have no idea what you two are talking about, so I’ll just make 1 point. “Best” is subjective. My son played HS basketball. Detroit Metro is the second most segregated area in the country. I’ve seen the boy’s basketball team from every HS. Lots are 11 or 10 white kids, maybe 1 or 2 black kids. Or 11 or 12 black kids. My son’s team was 50% each, and the school also diverse with Asians including Middle Eastern, and also economically diverse. That is how I define the “best.”

I'm talking about colleges and universities, not elementary and high schools, and that's what I thought Sebby was talking about also.