Why shouldn't finds go to religious institutions? I lived in a western country that allows public funding for religious schools, which I attended while growing up. The schools are still fulfilling a public need of educating students. Is it because they are religious?
It's quite simple, really: The government shouldn't be giving money to religious institutions because that would be, "respecting an establishment of religion".
You could argue that the 1st Amendment only applies to laws written by Congress and not the whims of state governments but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that it does extend downwards like that.
Then again, the Supreme Court also ruled that if a state does decide to subsidize private education it can't discriminate based on religion VS non-religion (Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue).
The bigger argument: By allowing a state to fund religious institutions (educational or not) you're basically granting the state great power over religious institutions (as well as taking non-sectarian money and giving it to sectarian causes). A governor or powerful congressman/regulator could demand all sorts of concessions from religious institutions or their funding could be withheld or reduced. In other words, it gives the government direct (and/or indirect) influence over the religion itself.
Seems to be stretching the separation of church and state.
As long as the schools meet certification and minimum curriculum, I dont see how it is different than the city buying concrete from a religious vendor.
It seems like an obvious example of separation of church and state. The state shouldn't be funding the indoctrination of people into a particular church.
A-religious endeavors are not inherently atheist. Public education is certainly not atheist.
Vouchers as a whole should be eliminated. Giving public funds to private schools is nothing short of evil. Using children as a pawn to move that money doesn't change anything.
Ultimately these schools exist to completely bypass any standards of education. That includes teaching religion, which is not allowed in public schools for good reason. This, on its own, isn't awful. But combined with stealing money from public schools it's a huge problem.
I think we will have to disagree. Religious topics aside, I am still a big proponent of vouchers, if only to get more kids out of bad public schools and hold them accountable.
It isnt stealing money because the schools dont deserve it. Students success should be the focus, not institutions.
Right, but you're describing a self-eating animal. If student success if the intention, diverting money from public schools won't help in the long run. It will work for a while, but as public schools get drained then private schools will be the only competitive option.
Then, of course, you would jack up the prices. Private schools are only limited in greed due to competition with the public sector. The more you erode the competition, the more expensive and lower quality private schools will become. Eventually we'll reach an inflection point, in which private schools are too expensive for vouchers, or our public funds would have to increase.
I also disagree on the institution not mattering. What many don't realize is there are virtually zero standards for private schools. Even today, many are not competitive. Rather, they exist as a way for insane parents to "educate" their children on fringe teachings. Sometimes that's religious schools, sometimes it's cult teachings, sometimes these private schools are more or less abuse centers or conversion camps.
SOME private schools have competitive education. It's not a given they have more competitive education, and I'd actually argue it's far less likely, because they have no rules anywhere saying what they have to do. Public schools are, at least, pretty reasonable in process and curriculum.
The reason conservatives are so keen on dismantling public education and pushing private schools isn't due to quality, although that's a convenient talking point. It's due to this lack of standards that allow conservative beliefs to flourish. It's often said education is an anti-conservative space. Naturally, the end goal is lower quality education, and this is simply the propaganda used to get to that desired end state.
It seems like you have a lot of unsupported assumptions.
First seems to be that public schools cant compete with private schools on student success. This seems strange from a public school proponent.
Why do you think private school competition will erode over time?
Why cant students flow back into public schools if private ones become expensive and terrible over time.
In my opinion, the whole point of vouchers is to let failing institutions fail. If you think accreditation criteria are too lax for private schools, then that is a workable objection. I think they should be the exact same as public schools.
> First seems to be that public schools cant compete with private schools on student success. This seems strange from a public school proponent
No, please read carefully. I said if this continues and more money is diverted from public schools, this will be the case. This should be obvious - every dollar on vouchers is a dollar NOT in public schools. That's not a side effect by the way, that's the entire purpose of these developments.
> Why cant students flow back into public schools if private ones become expensive and terrible over time
Because the public schools have no money now because you took it. That money doesn't fall from the sky.
> let failing institutions fail
Okay, so you agree with me. If we go down this path public education will fall. Once again this is the nature of this political movement, not a side effect.
> If you think accreditation criteria are too lax for private schools, then that is a workable objection
Sigh. No, no it's not. Because then you have a school that has accreditation and curriculum managed by the government that receives public funds.
Um... you just described a public school. That will never happen because the very idea is at odds with the ideology behind it.
The idea isn't "public school 2.0". The fact private schools have no standards is not an oversight, it's the motivation.
>No, please read carefully. I said if this continues and more money is diverted from public schools, this will be the case. This should be obvious - every dollar on vouchers is a dollar NOT in public schools. That's not a side effect by the way, that's the entire purpose of these developments.
Why cant public schools scale up and down, just like private schools?
>Because the public schools have no money now because you took it. That money doesn't fall from the sky.
Maybe I wasn't clear. the money follows the students in the form of vouchers. IF more kids want to go to public schools because private ones have become shitty, then the public schools will have more money.
>> let failing institutions fail
>Okay, so you agree with me. If we go down this path public education will fall. Once again this is the nature of this political movement, not a side effect.
It will at least shrink. If public schools get better and provide comparable student education, then they will survive. IF they cant, I wouldnt want them anyways.
>> If you think accreditation criteria are too lax for private schools, then that is a workable objection
>Sigh. No, no it's not. Because then you have a school that has accreditation and curriculum managed by the government that receives public funds. Um... you just described a public school. That will never happen because the very idea is at odds with the ideology behind it.
Public universities have accreditation requirements, that doesnt mean they are government institutions. It means they are regulated. Just like your doctor, butcher, or dentist are regulated but not government.
At the end of the day, what exactly are you worried about? If you and like minded people want to keep sending their kids to public schools they can do so. Is it more about controlling what other students and parents do?
When I have spoken with other people on this topic, their concern is generally the latter. They think that good students pull up bad students, and therefore it is acceptable for them to be dragged down by bad schools and bad students.
> Is it more about controlling what other students and parents do?
It's about attempting to stop the American right from achieving their decades-long goal of destroying public education.
I'm not stupid, I can see this issue for what it is. The conservatives thrive on a stupider population, and everyone knows that. It's no wonder that since Reagan our public schools have been under constant attack.
The end-goal here is having no public education at all, and instead forcing children to attend private schools where they will be taught religious teachings and other obviously wrong ideology. In the ideal outcome for the right, those who cannot afford education will simply not receive it, becoming fodder for the next generation of conservative propaganda. Without poor, stupid people the republicans have no voter base to manipulate.
Once republicans stop trying to put the ten commandments in public schools and stop trying to pass genital inspection legislation for school children, I'll humor your position. Until then, I'll stick with the reality that the right simply does not like the fair and equal access nature of public education.
That concern just doesn't ring true to me. I'm in one of the most liberal enclaves in the country, and every parent I know wants their children in private schools for the educational benefits.
I have progressive friends who teach in public schools but pinch pennies to send their children elsewhere. It isn't because they want to abolish education education.
I see atheist Chinese immigrants who pay top dollar to send their kids to catholic schools because they know it maximizes their education and path the IVY league.
This has absolutely not been my experience living in the south. I've known people who send their kids to private schools for conversion therapy purposes. And our governments are openly hostile to education in general.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. But, from a legislative perspective, this is 100% being pushed by the conservative right. You may have some progressive friends - I don't care. I live in a deep red state, I understand the rights intentions.
It is 100% to abolish education. These people get personally offended if you've went to college.
YMMV. Im in SF, so the right is non-existent. Progressives pay 50k/yr for the type private elementary schools. One of them recently had Hillary Clinton as the star speaker for a 5th grade convocation and you should have seen the parents going nuts and fighting for tickets.
> I dont see how it is different than the city buying concrete from a religious vendor.
It is not expected that the religious vendor will try to teach religion to every person who uses the structure built by the concrete the government pays for in your example.
In communities near me, recent expansions of school vouchers has been a game changer. Public schools are struggling and private schools give students a much better education. Public schools were failing well before private school vouchers existed.
Are the private schools forced to take any students? Or can they cherry pick just the best students? Do they reject anyone that needs an IEP? Public schools are legally obligated to provide an education to anyone, no matter how much trouble they cause. If these private schools take public coin, they should be required to follow the same laws.
When an airplane loses compression they instruct you to put your own mask on before you assist with other peoples'.
School should be the same way. Education should not be lowest-common-denominator. My kids should not have less opportunity because other kids have greater challenges.
It's the same tax dollars. It's paying for kids to go to school. That's a public good. You want society to do this.
Why should your tax dollars only go to schools controlled by the state? Do you care that public schools in the US typically have worse outcomes and have to spend more per child to get there?
OP seems to be saying if the non state controlled schools follow the rules as state schools then that is fine, but they currently don't. Not many private schools provide special education services for one.
> Do you care that public schools in the US typically have worse outcomes and have to spend more per child to get there?
That statement is not true.
There are many problems with the non-public system. I'll use the term "voucher" school to mean a school which is not controlled by a school board whose members are voted for by the residents of the school catchment area. (This isn't quite correct, as there are public schools run by a school board controlled by the state.) A "voucher" school also receives either money directly from taxes, or indirectly through, for example, a tax credit to the school or to the parents of the student.
1) the finances are not public, and include cases where the non-profit voucher school pays rent to a for-profit company, and pays license fees to a for-profit company, where are three are owned by the same person. The non-profit is not incentivized to get the best deal, which means my tax dollars go to enrich the owner rather than the students.
2) voucher schools generally spend money on advertisements, which target the student population they prefer rather then the entire population. The money for advertisements reduces the amount of money available to schools. Good advertising beats good teaching, because the advertising comes first. A local voucher school advertised a few years ago that all students would get their own tablet for learning. Now this school is in financial troubles, and doesn't have enough staff.
3) voucher schools can select their student population through many means, for example, require parental involvement every week, which selects for richer families which have that amount of free time.
4) voucher schools have more freedom to expel students. If a student is unruly, rather than using expensive counseling to help resolve the issues, a voucher school can expel the student. If a student has subpar grades, the school can make it known that the student is unwelcome for the next year, and can use behavior problems as subtext to expel that student.
Thus, you have some voucher schools which appear to do well, but they are not held anywhere near the same standards and obligations as actual public schools.
I don't want my tax dollars going to voucher schools. If you want to sent your kid to a private school, go ahead. Just don't expect me to subsidize you.
No, this isn't a well-functioning capitalist system. Competition is a core principle of capitalism. What occurred in the aerospace industry represents a government-sanctioned monopoly.
It’s always so funny to read this kind of answer when someone points out the evident flaws of capitalism!
“Hey, wait a minute, this is not how capitalism is supposed to work, so you can’t say it’s capitalism”.
Too bad that capitalism isn’t one monolithic thing and this is ABSOLUTELY how loosely regulated American capitalism works.
It’s a form of capitalism where human life is an optimization problem that sits on the way to profits.
Is there any kind of alternative that could be found, or have we reached the end of history, with our only two options being 2023 capitalism versus 1960s Soviet state capitalism?
I'm less concerned about mistakes as I am about systemic failures and bad incentives.
Boeing seems to have created a political and regulatory environment for itself where its better for it to design and build planes poorly, than it is for it to design and build planes well.
Consider the incentives of the people at the FAA. Their incentive is to never approve a design, because if they approve a faulty design, they get the heat, too. It's much safer to just not approve anything, or at least delay demanding ever more documentation.
Hence there's always going to be a tug of war between the FAA and the industry. The FAA never wants to approve anything, and industry goes out of business if the FAA doesn't approve it.
You'll see the same forces in action with the FDA.
BTW, as is abundantly clear from history, a fatal design mistake can and has destroyed several airframe companies. Boeing's finances were punished severely after the MAX crashes. Boeing does not win by making an unsafe design. When I worked at Boeing, I didn't know any engineer who was willing to sign his name to a faulty design. Yes, the engineer responsible for a piece of work gets his name on the drawings. It's career suicide for him if he signed off on a bad design.
Capitalism is literally defined by the ability to invest capital to accumulate more of it by way of profit. The logical end of this process is straightforwardly monopoly.
And if the world/environment/context of the business didn’t change then the monopolies might last, but because there is change there is room to innovate and outcompete the monopolies.
Capitalism is not only defined by the accumulation of capital, but also by competition. The interplay between market forces, competition, innovation, and regulation in capitalism works against the formation of monopolies.
The aerospace industry is not a good example of capitalism. What we have with Boeing is basically a government sanctioned monopoly. It’s basically a weak form of nationalization, without the stigma.
>Capitalism is not only defined by the accumulation of capital, but also by competition
That's wrong. In reality, the mere theoretical potential for competition has always been more than enough to call it capitalism from any perspective. The facts are that actual competition is not a requirement.
Capitalism is simple: The capital rules supreme. As opposed to the previous system of aristocracy, where it was the land owners. Nobody would seriously claim that aristocracy requires any kind of competition between the aristocrats. Even the very first capitalist big enterprises, such as East India Company were created as _monopolies_
Monopolies are broken by capitalism just as much as they're created by capitalism. The whole "end-stage capitalism" schtick is wrong because a free market will lead to the ossification and then breakdown of a monopolist. You just have to finish spring semester of Econ101 to find out how.
In it's origins it was about the capital ruling, as opposed to the aristocracy. So political power would be in the hands of people with capital, not the landed aristocracy. The means of production only entered the equation with the industrial revolution. And capitalism is older than that, albeit not much older
Abortion is a complex and controversial issue. Google does not have an obligation to only show pro-choice material when searching abortion, because that would be a form of censorship and bias that would violate its own principles of neutrality and diversity. I am not persuaded by your argument that these search results will harm users.
Google does not have an obligation to only show pro-choice material when searching abortion
Your twisted words here aren't helping your argument. In this situation someone is looking for healthcare options and they are being shown options for scam services that have no intention to ever provide any healthcare.
Just as if someone was searching for prescription medication and it directed them to sites that sold what appeared to be medication and instead were just sugar pills made to look like real medication.
Boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You twisting the definition of "healthcare" to only mean abortion is just as bad. "Healthcare" to a teen on the fence might mean EXACTLY looking for an agency that can help them deliver and give the baby up for adoption.
Nice attempt at intimidation - and I hope you enjoyed scrolling through years of my comments hoping to find something to sling since you can't address my actual arguments - but there's a reason people don't use alt accounts when voicing their support for abortion rights, because, again, the overwhelming majority of people are in favor of them.
"Healthcare" to a teen on the fence might mean EXACTLY looking for an agency that can help them deliver and give the baby up for adoption.
Are you arguing that clinics don't provide services that help women deliver babies or guide them through adoption? That's ridiculous. My two children are proof that doctors aren't going around fighting against women giving birth.
Are you arguing that search results for "how do I put my baby up for adoption" should lead to "abortion" clinics getting the top results, purely from either an English-language or PageRank metrics point of view?
I am pretty sure there would be a fair bit of outrage if woman searching for prenatal adoption services were directed to abortion clinics adverting as prenatal adoption centers that then stear people towards the "options" of abortion.
The main point is false representation; which Google if they value their relationship with their users .. they do have an obligation to carry advertising towards some degree of truth in representation of product or service being offered.
> I am pretty sure there would be a fair bit of outrage if woman searching for prenatal adoption services were directed to abortion clinics adverting as prenatal adoption centers that then stear people towards the "options" of abortion.
Well yes, because you're supposed to steer people away from killing, not towards it. After all, it's a good thing for searches about suicide to return results about treating depression, but it'd be horrible if searches about treating depression returned results about how to commit suicide.
> The main point is false representation; which Google if they value their relationship with their users .. they do have an obligation to carry advertising towards some degree of truth in representation of product or service being offered.
Continuing with my above example, is it false representation for Google to give you anti-suicide results for searches about suicide? Should they have to be truthful by only giving you results with instructions?
Your writing the words down does not make it so. It isn't particularly complex, and it isn't particularly controversial in the United States, even among Republicans; people want abortion rights and fringe groups want to deprive them of it.
Edit: also, I can't believe you baited me into arguing about whether abortion should be allowed or not.
Just in case you aren't actually familiar with these "crisis pregnancy centers" and how they work, this is about physical buildings that literally masquerade as abortion centers who are ready to help people get their needed abortions, and instead string them along until it's legally or medically too late.
Of course people who believe abortion is problematic should be allowed to freely say so. That is not the activity that these frauds are engaged in.
I’d hardly call extremist right-wing Christians a ‘fringe group’, as much as I think most people wish they were...
‘Terrorist group’? Sure. Spot on. ‘Fringe’? Sadly not at all.
Look at the ongoing trans genocide as another example as to how big and how powerful these truly hate-filled people are.
EDIT: saw a disgusting uneducated dead comment below here saying it’s offensive to call the very real trans genocide a ‘genocide’ to others because I guess they’ve either done no research or are more likely just transphobic.
It’s sad to see even in usually amazing communities like this; that the denial of the trans genocide continues.
We can’t begin to fix a problem, before we acknowledge the problem exists, and this isn’t a deniable or debatable issue - it’s happening. Let’s not be ignorant hateful cretins by denying it. Please.
Abortion is a complex and controversial issue for one religion and one political party. If every religion or political party’s “complexities” need to affect MY google searches at that point it will likely need to look like some castrated caricature of a page trying to answer the actual question I asked.
That's how human rights get violated and start getting worse for the people who are impacted, by calling it "controversial", wanting to be "neutral". It's typically people who have no skin in the game that call it that way and will never lose anything by debating it.
NPR's funding does not come solely from direct appropriation. NPR receives a higher amount of federal funding than what is commonly believed. It is difficult to determine the exact amount of federal funding because it is hidden within the fees paid by local affiliates. These local affiliates receive a significant portion of their funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is itself funded by federal tax dollars.
Congressional appropriation > Corporation for Public Broadcasting > grants for local affiliates > fee paid to NPR
Everything is turned into an existential risk these days. People are prone to believe in apocalyptic predictions because they fear the unknown and rely on flawed mental heuristics. Apocalyptic predictions automatically illicit skepticism from me.
Yes, this is how I feel about it. Between climate change, obesity, GM foods, mega-viruses, insects dying, extreme solar flares, and now AI, I’m surprised I’m still here anyway. Just perhaps AI will actually help solve some of those problems.
Counterpoint: the more our capacity grows, the more we have the legitimate ability to bring absolute destruction
Plastic or some other chemical ending sperm counts —> we previously had no ability to affect the global ecosystem on this scale
Bioweapon virus or microorganism eviscerating civilization —> we had no prior ability to engineer such a plague
Nuclear holocaust —> we previously had no ability to destroy the world with weapons
Runaway climate change —> we previously had no ability to alter the climate
Ai sky net moment —> we previously had no ability to make such an intelligence
Solar flare cutting all electronics —> we previously had no dependence upon a single point of failure
I could go on. We’ve had plenty of civilizations collapse but nothing has been so linked before and we lacked such capacity before.
This is not to say any of the above will come to pass. But it is foolish to say “apocalypses were previously impossible hence such warnings can be dismissed out of hand”
I'm spitballing here but it could be an opportunity for another bank to expand into a new market and acquire new customers. SVB has a unique position in the market, as they specialize in catering to the financial needs of industries such as technology, life science, healthcare, private equity, and venture capital.
Spot on, a ton of Directors / MDs are rushing to push this in front of their leadership (whoever 'leads' the acquisition will no doubt burnish their personal brand / career path /s).
That said, if I'm an SVB customer...do I want to stick with the bank that's had this issue? Even so, would I want to bank with the acquirer?
Seems like much of the SVB customer base doesn't have a/much choice with who will provide banking for them at the early stage.
Seems like the reason for acquiring this risking market would be to transition your the clients who succeed into the parent bank for their future banking needs. Sure you will get a bunch of small/medium sized clients for a mega bank, but they are just fishing for a couple giant paydays and want the next Apple or Amazon to start banking with them.
these specialist banks are not worth much, there is no retail banking advantage to having tech companies as clients. the individual people who run the companies are most likely already wealth management clients of the same banks that might acquire SVB.
In my metro, the median listing price for a home just peaked. Driven by low supply, high demand - stemming from a variety of factors. I've made competitive offers on many homes, only to be beaten by all cash offers or people putting more cash down for an appraisal gap. I get angry when I think about neighboring properties that sold for 50% less only 3 years ago, financed at 2.5% interest rates - while I must make a decision to pay 50% more and pay 7%. My wage increases during this time do not fill the gap. I feel I must accept a lower standard of living than my neighbor. This is a massive source of inequality that I feel does not get enough attention. I am quietly feeling the stress of despair and fomo in regards to my housing situation. How can a society function like this?
Even on a software eng salary in Seattle area, housing 40m away from city took many many years of saving to afford downpayment. As we were saving, the price went up faster than we could meet 20%. The rents also went up. It feel like the bar kept on moving faster than we could catch up.
This was 5 years ago. At current >1M prices, that would not be possible. 2 bedroom rents in Bellevue are > $2500/month. Kind of nuts.
The separation of church and state is not about preventing any kind of relationship between religious institutions and the government. Rather, it is about ensuring that the government does not establish an official state religion, and that it remains neutral towards different religious beliefs and practices.
This - but one could argue that the state having to make determinations of what constitutes a religious belief and practice _could_ go against the separation of church and state.
The state's role in determining whether a religious organization qualifies for tax-exempt status is not to evaluate the content or validity of the organization's religious beliefs or practices. The state's role is to ensure that the organization meets certain objective criteria for tax-exempt status, a necessary function.
You sure can if you follow the IRS's strict rules and requirements for granting tax-exempt status to religious organizations. I suspect you would have difficulty in demonstrating that the organization has a legitimate religious purpose and is organized and operated exclusively for that purpose. Creating a fake religion is likely to be viewed as fraud and could result in legal consequences.
It is not a waste. These halo products help drive performance and efficiency improvements to mainstream products. With every generation, CPUs become more efficient when looking at performance per watt. Intel and AMD CPU's are more efficient than ever.
Sort of but also not really: performance per watt is not the complete measure of improvement, you need to look at "performance, per watt, per wasted watt": If your high performance CPU uses 75W just to stay powered on, then its almost certainly not an improvement over a slower CPU that burns through less energy just to power the cores at all.
For example, let's contrast the 13700k to the ancient 7920X. The 13700K benchmarks to 47106, with a TDP of 250, a performance per watt of 188. Compare that to a 7920X, which benchmarks to half that at 23607, with a TDP of 140W, a performance per watt that's less than 170. The 13700K is clearly an improvement if we stopped there!
Except we don't, because the wasted watts matter a lot: the 13700K needs 75W just to power its cores, whereas the 7920X needs 50W. Adjusting our performance per watt to performance per watt per wasted watt, we get 2.5 for the 13700K, but 3.4 for the 7920X. That old CPU is a lot better at turning energy into work.
The 13700K is unquestionably a higher performing CPU than the 7920X, and I doubt anyone would object to calling it a much, much better CPU, but it's very hard to--with a straight face--call the newer CPUs an improvement in terms of energy consumption. CPUs have gotten quite a bit worse =)
If you take it to an extreme the flaw is apparent. Let's say "bogomips" is the name of a real world accurate benchmark.
If a CPU at full performance gives 100 bogomips at 2 watts and idles at 1 watt by your metric the score is 50.
On the other hand, if a CPU at full performance gives 200 bogomips at 2 watts and idles at a small fraction under 2 watts, your metric also gives a score of ~50.
It's obvious the 200 bogomips processor is way more efficient than the 100 bogomips processor. Something is missing.
I think both idle watts and TDP are somewhat irrelevant. Maybe it should be bogomips / actual watt draw (different from nominal TDP) at full speed. Assuming you can keep the processor busy. Not being able to keep the processor busy doesn't really reflect on processing efficiency. Except that it is better for the wasted watts to be as low as possible.
A true efficiency, like a true benchmark is elusive, because what is "normal use"? Somewhere between "no work, all waste" and "full use, maximum efficiency".
I do this in effect. For things that don't rely on high core counts and memory bandwidth, advanced CPU or GPU features, or complex environments, I use a $150 Chromebook.
These new Intels are desktop CPUs.
They also have Performance and Efficiency cores. Ideally, they'd prioritize using E-cores, and only as many as needed to complete tasks within an acceptable period. In effect, though, they're not very smart, and you've got to get into overclocking and undervolting to get them into a state that resembles AMD's TDP-limited ECO Mode that provides 80% of the performance at 50% of the power.
