|
luxury handset posted:yeah, the actual technology worked great for decades Hell, I'd give up my 1.25 hour San Diego-San Francisco flight for an 8-hour train trip every time.
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
ryonguy posted:I am going to out myself as a dumbass for this, but what prevents an edge of space/LEO arc transit from being less practical from an economic standpoint than high atmospheric jets, at least in a comparison between a SST-style jet versus a rocket launched shuttle that glides in? Okay, higher engineering challenges, but they've already been solved (mostly(sort of)). Are the costs so insanely higher that it was never an option? Yes, it's insanely much more expensive. Conventional airplanes don't need to bring their own oxidizer and benefit from the atmosphere carrying them. An efficient rocket wants as little to do with the atmosphere as possible, which means it wants a rocket that burns for a relatively short period of time (meaning high acceleration) to minimize air drag losses, which means a ballistic coast phase and a relatively violent re-entry. All of this means the vehicle is subjected to far greater stress of various kinds (from heating to vibrations and drag), and almost any kind of mishap is extremely threatening to the vehicle and everyone aboard it. Turning a suborbital rocket (like the Falcon 9 boosters) around after a flight is something that takes weeks or months today. The problem with the Concorde was that the kind of people who can afford a really expensive plane ticket (rather than the cheapest one available, which is where all the volume is) are already a very small market segment, and the portion of them who would rather spend two hours in a narrow Concorde seat than six hours in luxury and comfort on the upper deck of a 747 is an even smaller one. Scheduled passenger flights need volume to survive - without a regular and frequent schedule the passengers won't come because it's not convenient for them, but a regular and frequent schedule requires reliable passenger volumes to be economically viable. The way this works today is that the volume that enables frequent flights is provided by economy class, while the business class provides some extra profit margin. If you have less passengers you can make the planes smaller to keep the frequency up, but this doesn't scale down infinitely because of the overhead of operating aircraft. Business class only airlines wouldn't work. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 22:40 on May 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:A laptop isn't much use when you don't have Internet, and a lot of poor children don't. The ability to type an essay is important, but so is being able to look things up. It's not uncommon for school systems now to insist that parents use their Internet portal to interact, which means the parents have to go to the library to say "Why does my kid have an unexcused absence when I sent a note?" OK, so the company I did the educational thing from '94 to '99 was aimed at the lower income areas and the ORIGINAL idea was that the cable companies were going to put fancy settop boxes in classrooms and the homes of students in these areas (we started development with the Apple/British-Telecom settop box, which was basically a Mac LCIII with a MPEG card). By the end of 1995 that was clearly a dead end, so coming from video games I suggested the coming-soon Sony Playstation. So we did over 100 Playstation titles for schools and got Sony to supply hardware as part of the deal. In the summer of 2017 I worked on an educational product for a charter school that was paying $25/laptop for some refurbed HP stuff ... running Ubuntu. Better solution.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:yeah, the actual technology worked great for decades That's basically why the Concorde failed. It could fly at mach 2 which was really very impressive but there wasn't enough need for people to schedule flights that fast. Anybody who has an actual need to be at any major city in the world at a moment's notice is probably rich enough to have a private jet. Even then somebody that rich and important is rich and important enough to make people wait. A hell of a lot of stuff that needs dealt with right loving now can be done on the internet or over a phone. It was primarily marketed a business class travel as you could leave New York around breakfast time, have a meeting in London, and be back by dinner but...like...why? That's actually completely unnecessary. For less than that costs you could just do it over the phone. As much as people like to bitch about planes being slow and uncomfortable the vast majority of people will always buy the cheapest ticket available and plan around whatever the trip is like.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
The Concorde was profitable though, on the extremely few routes they could find enough volume on. Still, the point stands because I'm not sure if they ever made back the development costs, and keep in mind it was a nationalized project. The risks associated with a development like that were completely insane back then and no privately held company would ever have done it - you need the government to take risks like that and foot most of the bill, so you can rake in the profit later. And indeed that's what they did after privatization in the late 80's - British Airways bought the aircraft for a tiny fraction of the actual unit cost and then operated them at private profit for close to 20 years.
TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:10 on May 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
im sure we all could have benefited from this in school! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrECR9o3ygE
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That's basically why the Concorde failed. It could fly at mach 2 which was really very impressive but there wasn't enough need for people to schedule flights that fast. Anybody who has an actual need to be at any major city in the world at a moment's notice is probably rich enough to have a private jet. Even then somebody that rich and important is rich and important enough to make people wait. A hell of a lot of stuff that needs dealt with right loving now can be done on the internet or over a phone. It was primarily marketed a business class travel as you could leave New York around breakfast time, have a meeting in London, and be back by dinner but...like...why? That's actually completely unnecessary. For less than that costs you could just do it over the phone. Let's face it, too -- London to New York was very much the bread and butter of the concorde service for BA, and now they have an all-business-class flight with US customs preclearance from London City, eliminating the need to go through the hellish nonsense that is Heathrow and customs at JFK.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:the extremely few routes they could find enough volume on. That right there was the core of the problem. Profit on this sort of thing lies in volume. This is why not every flight even offers business/first class seats and if they do there probably aren't very many of them. Even people that can comfortably afford the posh seats will often still fly coach because gently caress it, it's cheaper and it's really only a few hours anyway. People who fly constantly and can afford to always do it in the nice seats probably just get personal aircraft anyway which they know full well won't make them any profit. TheFluff posted:you need the government to take risks like that and foot most of the bill, so you can rake in the profit later. And this right here is why science should pretty much always be publicly funded. Business can't see very far beyond the next quarter or year and want returns on investment right now because gently caress you I want a bonus. Some scientific innovations don't become profitable for several decades after they've been invented and would never have happened if the government hadn't just thrown some money at some nerds and basically said "hey have fun just promise to teach some new nerds along the way." This is why I'm legitimately confused when people bitch about throwing money at NASA. They're just such an insignificant percentage of the budget it just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but the return on investment has been absolutely gargantuan technologically. Then again the really big companies that had long term plans usually did have science divisions that just threw salaries and a budget at some nerds and told them to nerd out as hard as they possibly could. "Throw a bunch of poo poo against the wall and see what sticks" is a viable strategy if you can afford it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Ever since Concorde was grounded, it has always come up. The real aspect is you can build such a jet for 40 years now. But you will go broke fueling it or you will have just 50 passengers in whole world who can afford to fly on it! And those fifty people already have their own private jets.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Someone told me there's electric supersonic Jets. Is this true?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Someone told me there's electric supersonic Jets. Is this true? Not to the best of my knowledge, no. There's not an electric jet of any sort.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Not to the best of my knowledge, no. There's not an electric jet of any sort. There are electric "ducted fans". They are NOT jets and they are far from supersonic, but yeah some folks call them jets. Electric aircraft are becoming a thing for training and at least one short-haul seaplane airline.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:There are electric "ducted fans". They are NOT jets and they are far from supersonic, but yeah some folks call them jets. Training seems to be a decent use case for electric, but they'll have to figure out a way to easily swap batteries or charge them very quickly because my bosses fuckin hate seeing a plane on the ground not flying.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Training seems to be a decent use case for electric, but they'll have to figure out a way to easily swap batteries or charge them very quickly because my bosses fuckin hate seeing a plane on the ground not flying. I think this was posted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REdh3Q4cPuE 3-hour endurance with 45 min reserve. Quick charging.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:It feels like people are rushing too much to shunt out the technology in schools though? Schools these day, do in fact need to have much tech, as the world outside school has much tech. And it has certainly proven to be helpful in education settings. The fact that mass iPad buys, or over the top thing like gimmicks to try to massively cut teacher is not working, does not make educational technology bad. This argument has little to do with putting laptops into kids hands per se. The article that started this conversation was about X-prize awarding two companies money to develop educational software so that they can, presumably, make a profit for themselves and their wealthy benefactor (a thread regular Who Must Not Be Named). Technology in classrooms is a problem for a number of reasons: 0) Racism, colonialism and sexism are not improved by handing kids laptops. African Americans still get their resumes trashed because of their names. Women are still selected against by hiring managers, too. American and European corporations still treat African (and other) countries like colonies to extract wealth from. Splitting up funding of schools by district still exists when the poor kids have laptops. 1) Poverty is not improved by handing kids laptops. Learning to code (or whatever the laptop is supposed to do) doesn't fill your stomach today. Poverty is, by definition, lacking money. The rich people that push these "tech solutions" are pushing them with the money they extracted from poor (and poorer) workers. In short, their exploitive actions based on a rational of business tools caused this problem and they want to use business tools to try to fix it because they want to make more money and find the obvious alternative (increase taxes on the rich and give money to poor people) unpalatable. 2) This kind of "charity" or techno-optimism is something done to its beneficiaries, rather than with them. I remember the LA iPad debacle and I also remember parents and teachers asking for that money to be spent on after school programs, buses, better food and replacing ancient textbooks. 3) Technology focuses on individuals, talking about what a student can do rather than what the students can do. You even do it in this post where you appeal to laptops as an aid for students who can't "write by hand, students who have vision or hearing issues, it has so many way[s] to level [the] playing field and benefit whole classes". You bring up uncommon problems in individual students as an argument for why whole classes should be given laptops, instead of funding for teaching methods for those who need them. You assume that laptops are a panacea and are done with it. The fundamental problem is that the solutions to these problems are both straightforward and very, very hard because (except 0) they involve the rich giving up a lot of the spoils of their economic victory to help the less fortunate. And, maybe worse still, it cuts them and their business oriented world view out of the solution. They feel as if they become piggybanks and there are no accolades for paying your taxes. Very few people (I imagine they must exist) who are against technology in the classroom in the manner that has been discussed in this thread prior to your post (iPads in LA, reading apps in Tanzania) want teachers to grade by hand or for kids to roll in the mud after school like they did. We want to fix the fundamental problems at their sources rather than hoping technology will save us from ourselves (it won't). You can lump laptops in to the supplies category (that multiple posters have brought up) while sufficiently funding schools, supporting poor families, developing teaching methods for the students you mention and trying to do something about point 0 (which is the hardest of the bunch!) and no one here will object (I think). The problem is technology is proposed as a substitute for those other things (it is not) by the very people who had a hand in causing the problem and stand to benefit personally from their proposed "solution." MickeyFinn fucked around with this message at 08:45 on May 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:A laptop isn't much use when you don't have Internet, and a lot of poor children don't. The ability to type an essay is important, but so is being able to look things up. It's not uncommon for school systems now to insist that parents use their Internet portal to interact, which means the parents have to go to the library to say "Why does my kid have an unexcused absence when I sent a note?" Hell, just the cost of retrofitting every classroom to be able to charge 30+ laptops is more expensive than running that lunch program, which is proven to work. nepetaMiserkiryoiki, have you ever seen a public school textbook before? Do you have any comprehension of how beat these devices are going to get, and how much of a pain in the rear end it is going to be for these kids and their families to be stuck hauling them around and needing to cater to their needs (power, internet, downtime for break/fix repairs) in order to allow a child to study? How much in the way of spares inventory and on-site technical support is the district going to have to front in order to keep these things usable? Do you think the average family in the US can afford to replace a district laptop if it gets lost, stolen, or dropped?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Anybody who has an actual need to be at any major city in the world at a moment's notice is probably rich enough to have a private jet. Even then somebody that rich and important is rich and important enough to make people wait. That forms one of favorite bits of The Stars My Destination: in a world where most humans can teleport, the super-rich still travel by car and plane for no reason other than to show that they are rich enough to afford it and important enough to make people wait. AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 08:43 on May 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 08:40
|
|
|
Probably also worth noting that a lot of tech expertise comes from having time and money to mess around with computers a lot. You won’t put kids from the South side of Chicago in SV firms by giving them a couple of structured hours on iPads at school every day. You do that by making them rich, white, and sending them to Stanford or Berkeley. If an education problem-solver does not acknowledge the immediate problem that kids are being expected to sit still and learn boring stuff in school while they’re losing their minds from hunger, they’re not acting in good faith. Full stop. Same goes for the fact that teachers at bad schools are selected for whoever either cannot get a placement elsewhere, or who is willing to kill themselves at work for the same money as people teaching at easier jobs at elite schools, and on top of that, they’re given way more starving kids with bad home lives to deal with.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Let's face it, too -- London to New York was very much the bread and butter of the concorde service for BA, and now they have an all-business-class flight with US customs preclearance from London City, eliminating the need to go through the hellish nonsense that is Heathrow and customs at JFK.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/1130870467408072709
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
I wonder how you gamify RSI.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I wonder how you gamify RSI. Carpal Tunnels and Trolls.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I wonder how you gamify RSI. Cookie Clicker.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I wonder how you gamify RSI. Cast of Duty Red Dread Rehabilitation Gears of Woe
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Cast of Duty Red Dead Extensions
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hell, just the cost of retrofitting every classroom to be able to charge 30+ laptops is more expensive than running that lunch program, which is proven to work. Are power strips so expensive in America? I quite doubt it is so. Yes I have seen textbooks. I have also gone to school in two different countries which by early 2000th already had laptop usage in public schools and I and other children did pretty good job of handling the computers. Most of the devices made it through each year, both of German and French schools. I really do not understand idea it is big imposition on kids or families to have an power outlet or carry the device, or why parents would be on hook for laptop repair. Why should parents be on hook for that in first place? It is not how such programs as I am aware of tend to work. But if the students and parents are to be responsible for that, it would seem they would already have repsonsibility for other expensive items like textbook, and calculator, other thing used both at home and school. It is not like you can escape using expensive thing that may be destroyed in schooling. Perhaps those schools without power and running water in the schoolhouse and homes alike can not handle these devices? That seems it would be big outlier in truth. In practicality the systems were already working a decade and more where I went and could see firsthand, and from what I read also worked fine in many American places. And the ongoing drop in costs for the devices/increase of robustness/simplicity of management have only improved suitable. I do not understand insistence that American is exceptional in need to refuse to use basic equipment, especially as most schooling has been using computers of some sort in the classroom for many decades and equipment always needs eventual upgrade. Why is so much resistance to notion that next cycles should expand the use? Additional, do not understand me to be saying that like the 5 year old child should be given and expected to take care of a laptop or something. Though it is hard to say just when the students should be trusted in such a thing, I would expect teenagers should certainly be old enough.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
It sure is exciting watching tech companies change the world with novel inventions like company scrip and pitting workers against each-other.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Are power strips so expensive in America? I quite doubt it is so. snarky answer - young kids and power strip daisy chains don't mix well real answer - this is not an actual solution, and you are avoiding the real problems inherent in just handing out devices. not just power in the classrooms, but issues of internet access, of device integrity (kids tend to be clumsy and break things), of the utility of the device - holistic problems which aren't solved by just throwing laptops at kids, unless the problem you're trying to solve is "not enough of this school district's budget is going to feed tech industry giants" nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:I do not understand insistence that American is exceptional in need to refuse to use basic equipment, especially as most schooling has been using computers of some sort in the classroom for many decades and equipment always needs eventual upgrade. Why is so much resistance to notion that next cycles should expand the use? american school funding is inherently hyperlocal, and kept that way to enforce socioeconomic segregation. this segregation IS the problem inherent in public schooling. if you don't understand this then you won't be able to understand why american education is bad, and why tossing laptops at kids in poverty is like throwing snowballs at a house fire
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
i also think there's a fundamental problem here with the way you are approaching the question - you seem to be framing it "why shouldn't we have computers in the classroom" which, there are many places where there are plenty of computers in the classroom. the argument everyone else is having is "why aren't computers in the classroom sufficient to increase educational outcomes" for which "add more computer" is a very poor answer
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hell, just the cost of retrofitting every classroom to be able to charge 30+ laptops is more expensive than running that lunch program, which is proven to work. you know that there are carts and cabinets specifically designed for this right load it up with like 30 or 40 laptops and then plug it into the wall luxury handset posted:snarky answer - young kids and power strip daisy chains don't mix well jfc this stuff's been around for at least a decade, this isn't some sort of arcane or haphazard poo poo OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 22:00 on May 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Wallet posted:It sure is exciting watching tech companies change the world with novel inventions like company scrip and pitting workers against each-other.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
OJ MIST 2 THE DICK posted:
So has breakfast, but schools won’t give them to students either.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:So has breakfast, but schools won’t give them to students either. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Volunteer in your local public schools sometime. Most of them around here can't even get balls that stay inflated for recess.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:snarky answer - young kids and power strip daisy chains don't mix well Is there some special disability of American kids? The teachers handled such thing in the schools. Also not clear on why the strips would be daisy chain. I do not understand what you think is not actual solution to problem of: students need education in using computers, and students benefit from using computers for many subject. And how on earth is internet access an issue? Surely it is rare in these days for your schools to lack internet access. "Kids break school equipment" has also been ongoing thing for all of history of schools, it is no special burden. Also no idea on why you insist on strawman of its just laptops. Whines about segregation do nothing to make laptops and other devices less useful in school. Is not a major issue that your bad schools are being forced to not have these devices the good schools have been using for quite some time? I do not understand rejecting this aspect of improving them any more than I would understand rejecting replacing broken-down school building, or refusing to improve a school's library just because other thing in school has not been improved yet. This also all comes across as denying that many poorly off students are also likely to have disability and other issues that mean they cannot get by nearly as well with just traditional handwriting etc. There are wide variety of way that being able to zoom in for reading, able to type etc benefits students. luxury handset posted:i also think there's a fundamental problem here with the way you are approaching the question - you seem to be framing it "why shouldn't we have computers in the classroom" which, there are many places where there are plenty of computers in the classroom. the argument everyone else is having is "why aren't computers in the classroom sufficient to increase educational outcomes" for which "add more computer" is a very poor answer Go complain to people dismissing using modern teaching methods as some sort of scam that doesn't work? The people who say the rich people must know its bad to use computer in school because the rich people use fancy bull private school that advertises minimal tech? That is what is being address.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
OJ MIST 2 THE DICK posted:you know that there are carts and cabinets specifically designed for this right "well the roof may be leaking and there's no A/C but we managed to set this classroom circuit up to handle an extra 300 amps" like you can't just run an extension cord through the window man. poor schools generally can't afford electrical renovations when they typically have other facility defects. i know these problems seem so simple bing bong just hire mr. sparky but there's generally structural issues that determine why poor, crumbling schools are poor and crumbling in the first place nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:And how on earth is internet access an issue? Surely it is rare in these days for your schools to lack internet access. haha yeah, you don't get it. sorry you had to learn it this way. https://www.theedadvocate.org/the-absence-of-internet-at-home-is-a-problem-for-some-students/ nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Go complain to people dismissing using modern teaching methods as some sort of scam that doesn't work? The people who say the rich people must know its bad to use computer in school because the rich people use fancy bull private school that advertises minimal tech? That is what is being address. i don't know how to make this any clearer to you. i don't think i can. access to computers will not solve poverty. poverty is the problem, and poverty is enforced by the same funding mechanisms and shortfalls that prevent some schools from having access to computers in the first place trying to give technology to poor students is like just putting bandages on a gunshot victim without removing the bullet first. it is treating the symptoms, not the causes, and won't do any good at all Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 22:25 on May 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
The point is that in the US, tech in schools is exclusively a way to avoid solving the actual problem while pretending to do something good. The actual problems are many, but all relate to the fact that kids in struggling schools are half-starved, desperately poor, and have bad home lives with missing and/or abusive parents. Wealth inequality is super bad here.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
Mineaiki posted:The point is that in the US, tech in schools is exclusively a way to avoid solving the actual problem while pretending to do something good. Citation is very needed. This sounds entirely fake. You really claim that past 40 years of educational technology has been faked but only in America? So why are you against one component that benefits students in comparison to alternative methods? Do you also think you have monopoly on wealth inquality? luxury handset posted:"well the roof may be leaking and there's no A/C but we managed to set this classroom circuit up to handle an extra 300 amps" No wonder you think technology in school is impossible, you seem to think computer still draws as much power as 1970th mainframe. Not sure how one would even build up 300 amp draw with modern laptop, that would need to be several hundreds of very high end gaming laptop pulling full load at once I believe. luxury handset posted:haha yeah, you don't get it. sorry you had to learn it this way. This is article about not being at home, which is not relevant. Both you and another poster have odd belief that internet is required at all times which do not add up. luxury handset posted:
What is relevance meant to be here? Most things at a school do not solve poverty by themselves or even when all together.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
it's also easy to just throw a box of laptops into a classroom and feel like you've done some good, while turning a profit it's a far easier solution than breaking down the high wall of local control over school funding, and humans consistently prefer an easy, pointless solution to one which is difficult but meaningful "we need more tech in classrooms!" is effectively homeopathy. just increase the concentration of technology then things will get better! nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:No wonder you think technology in school is impossible, you seem to think computer still draws as much power as 1970th mainframe. Not sure how one would even build up 300 amp draw with modern laptop, that would need to be several hundreds of very high end gaming laptop pulling full load at once I believe. i was responding to someone discussing a cabinet which charges dozens of laptops at once nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:This is article about not being at home, which is not relevant. Both you and another poster have odd belief that internet is required at all times which do not add up. there is a thing called "homework" which is done in the home nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:What is relevance meant to be here? Most things at a school do not solve poverty by themselves or even when all together. and yet addressing poverty is what is necessary to solve educational disparity. increased access to tech is not helpful, schools are often already saturated in educational technology, or the problems they have are too great to be solved with educational technology. if you don't understand this then you have nothing useful to say about the role of technology in increasing educational attainment Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 22:40 on May 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
Isn't the real problem that schools cost tax money to run, Boomers haven't had kids of pre-college school age for a good twenty years, and loving lol if their hard earned money is gonna pay for "the education of illegals that will just grow up to be gang bangers"? Add in the ever popular "We didn't need that expensive stuff when I/my kids went to school, and I/they turned out fine!" personal anecdote too. And I always hear about education cuts in America, but I have never heard of their budgets being increased. Can't have school lunches or learning supplies provided by the school boards if there's no money Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 22:43 on May 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 22:40
|
|