> If colleges really want to, they can set tuition at three million a semester and offer price cuts to students that "get in." I don't see why this has to be a wink-wink thing, if they want to offer goods or services for a price so be it. There's no need to involve corruption or secret winks in the normal practice of exchanging a service for money.
As a European outsider, this has already happened. The fact that Americans aren't outraged about the ridiculously high price of a US university degree is mind boggling
Americans are outraged at student loans instead of tuition because you don't notice the price you paid until you have to start paying off the loan. In an ideally rational world student loans would not be a problem because students would only take them on rationally, but as it turns out extending credit is just asking them to make decisions they never would otherwise.
As an older Millennial (with no student loans) I don’t think that’s quite accurate.
I distinctly remember a student seminar at high school where they talked about college and how to pay for it. What was drilled into us, over and over, was “not to make a decision based on sticker shock” and that “student debt is the best debt; better than a mortgage even!” And that career earnings with a college degree would melt any debt away without much fuss.
I sure hope Gen-Z Americans aren’t getting fed the same misinformation.
For a scientist, he does a piss-poor job of producing open, reproducible research. He doesn't even show numbers. Whatever his credentials may be, this post is all talk without even a nugget of actual data or information. So yes, it borders on shit-posting. We have to expect better from a CS professor
Yeah - in a way it's worse that the article is so lacking in detail because you expect the evidence to be present as a base-line level of competency for a person with such a position. We certainly shouldn't be appealing to authority, at any rate.
So proton has bought in-browser apps that cannot be blocked by ad-blockers because they're directly within the browser GUI instead of inside the HTML page.
I really love Mozilla and what they stand for, but for the love of God, sponsored ads within the browser proper don't sound like a good idea. Once you open that path, what's next? Imagine MS Clippy suggesting you drink a red bull because it noticed your typing is becoming slower. Plus all the greenwashing in the public announcement feels dishonest. Let's call this what it is: experimenting with in-app ads as potential revenue stream.
> experimenting with in-app ads as potential revenue stream.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. It's a conversation that's important to have. It's not unlike the Mozilla/Mr.Robot fiasco[0].
Yesterday (and related), I suddenly had a Mozilla extension automatically install on a Windows laptop I use very sparingly. I didn't take any screenshots but it's detailed on this medium article I just turned up: https://medium.com/@neothefox/firefox-installs-add-ons-into-...
Essentially, after I killed the main extension, another one displayed that wanted to make suggestions for extensions... based on extensions I am already using. It disappeared before I had a chance to finish my research on it. It was odd, in a backhanded sort of way.
I had all telemetry previously turned off (but the extension indicated that the install was based on my telemetry preferences), my workflow was interrupted, research I was forced to conduct about what was happening, etc...
I can see Mozilla treading carefully here by focusing on a product that aligns with a single entry of their mission statement (principle 4: Mozilla Manifesto[1]). But... it's clear that Mozilla is heading in a direction, ever so slowly, that will make their (current) core users question their commitment to one of their ten core principles. tbh, the other nine principles sounds like they're running for office...
So what you're saying is that money from a paid service going to Mozilla's pocket could be a new potential revenue stream? I can't believe nobody noticed that.
Charging for reviews doesn't solve anything. The company paying you for the review will then just reimburse you for the cost of the fake review as well. But you'd get rid of almost all honest reviewers
> There is already much discussion about the current state of Russian industry and its ability to maintain the standards of yesteryear. Whatever the outcome of the inquiry, this event will only heighten those concerns and will underline to the US in particular the need to bring online new rocket systems. These vehicles, produced by the Boeing and SpaceX companies, are set to make their debut next year.
Is it just me, or is this unnecessarily hostile writing? This is literally rocket science, and the escape mechanisms seem to have worked perfectly. And at least the Russians do have (had) a working way to get stuff to iss, so I don't think these (uncited!) accusations are called for
I agree, credit to Russia for having one of only two man rated rockets in the world. But Russia’s increasing failure rates have been an industry topic for a few years now though - it’s a valid concern.
Might be a little hostile but none of it is inaccurate. American space experts have bemoaned the fact that we have had to rely on Russia to send people to Space since retiring the Shuttle, and have discussed its impact on national security, the economy, and just our plain old scientific knowledge.
Thanks. After reading up on it more, I agree. But Since BBC did not offer any follow up links, context, quotes or other sources for their claims, it sounded like unfounded accusations (to my uninformed ears)
Sir, there was nothing political about the quoted paragraph assuming that it is accurate that the industry have been discussing russian space reliability. In fact it would be you who has politicized it now.
I'm not following news about space, and was just going from what I read. he article did not provide any context or sources for these claims. Now that HN has filled in thw gaps, it does sound like Russia might have a problem with their tech. But imo BBC should have quoted either other articles or experts on the matter when making statements like this
I'm not sure how I feel about that argument, did we really just find a place where public attacks on a person are better? I would think at most people actually involved in something that relies on the person may have a valid argument for such a thing, if it sticks to a concrete subject they actually have reason to care about. Other than that, I don't see the general public getting involved in discussions of a person (as such, in general) as a good thing.
If I am trying to determine if I should buy or sell TSLA because the CEO just called another man a "Pedo" or claiming "funds secured" I think discussing what this man has said is justified.
Everyone is not a rocket scientist nor an avid reader of space industry magazines and thus it kind of makes sense to gove the reader a bit of insigh in the general direction of the industry.
As a European outsider, this has already happened. The fact that Americans aren't outraged about the ridiculously high price of a US university degree is mind boggling