mikec3010

I'm offended. Remove this at once dang. This is gender stereotyping and misogyny. We don't need this kind of harangueing in here.

I asked "why doesn't apple allow or support it", not "why can't it be done?"

Why was the harangueing ok when Adrienne was doing it? Was it because it was done with the proper political bent?

If you dont show someone an ad, that's not discrimination. It's just not advertising to a group of people.

Please don't talk about gender discrimination in other industries? Is that wrongthink?

Dang, please don't allow people to post about these topics if you don't like facts that are inconsistent with your or others' pre-approved narratives.

I wonder why apple doesn't allow or support Linux? I would happily buy a Mac pro (trashcan) or a mbp if it had solid Linux support. I think their hardware is awesome. But I have no interest in learning MacOS. The dealbreaker for me is no ctrl key in the corner

I wonder if you could compromise and use powdered concrete in a closed system? High powered fans could blow the fine powder upward in a silo so it would act like a liquid. Then large paddlewheels catching the powder could power a generator coming back down. I have no idea if powder going up a tube has less friction than blocks on a cable/pulley, however.

> Saying you don't know what you're talking about is not a personal attack

It's attacking the person, not the central point. Thus making it ad-hominem.

> You might be surprised to learn that there are in fact three branches of government in the United States

See above comment.

> Assuming 1 teacher making 100k

Assume a PhD student making a $35k stipend or a foreign grad student making $14/hr.

This covers a good 25%-40% of the curriculum, depending on the institution.

I think the reverse of what he said was true: that tuition has risen artificially because of all the free money. But yeah I'm also skeptical that tuition would decrease even close to the same way if the money were removed. I think they'd cut supply before they cut price. Especially with the all too common "but you need a degree" fallacy

The same "they" you are referring to. The ones writing the checks. I don't care about the precise technicality that enables wage suppression. I literally don't care. The constitution also says no spying on Americans, but somehow that precise word of law was elided. The bottom line is: they have billions, they suppress wages for employees, and they enrich billion dollar contracting firms. Nothing I claim is untrue.

> you don't know what you're talking about.

Personal attacks aren't welcome here.

The government has the money. As evidenced by their defense budget.

The government does not pay the money to their employees. As evidenced by NSA employees making less than high-grade truck drivers.

The government does pay billions to corporations such as Lockheed or Booz, etc.

SO let's recap: they have the money, they just choose not to pay it to their employees. But instead it inexplicably gets rerouted to rent-seeking gatekeepers.

> but then the government pays...

That's my point. They have the money, but something-something..."policy"...something-something.... It goes to corporations instead of people.