Phi for All

You can't fiddle with one side of the equation only. If private schools can identify and cut waste, so can public ones. And they'll always be cheaper in the long run because they don't have to charge extra for profit.

I think you're mistaken in thinking that turning education into a business is "breaking all the rules", because the rule you're breaking is fairly inviolate. For-profit businesses ALL start with the phrase, "We will make a profit by doing X". Taking the publicly-funded approach, we start with the phrase, "We will teach children what they need to succeed". Nothing is EVER going to change the fact that private schools MUST charge more for the same education because of their need for profit.

No, it's about this site requiring mainstream explanations about science. If you had scientific support for your sentient universe concept, you could present it here to support your statements. You get locked down because you keep making the claims but can't come up with a decent explanation without using magic or woo. We comprehend just fine, thanks. If you don't understand something, you should ask other people who do. That's how science works. ' Making up things you can't support isn't science. Keep it out of here.

You're the person who made a claim about the universe in a thread about whether FTL travel is possible. It's in Speculations, but it's still a science subject. If you aren't able or willing to support your statements, please don't make them in the first place.

! Moderator Note Thread closed.

Looking at overall funding doesn't help you see how the budgets are being spent. Much of the education dollars misspent in the US happen at the district level, where "business" people set up deals with private industry for things like foodservice and technology and more administrative overhead. Since I've been alive, education spending has increased by more than 350%, yet more than half the funds don't actually make it to the classrooms and the results of that spending are dubious at best. Ah, so you're judging what students need to learn based on your version of honesty? OK, please don't use this type of argument. It's just dumb, and insulting, and makes me think the rest of what you're saying is equally weak. Lack of focus on whose part? Are you judging the students this way? These are children, so any focus should probably come from professional people trained to engage focus. I'd prefer to see a system that spent what was needed for each child to learn what they need to do what they're good at that also makes them happy. It may not take much for some, and it may take a LOT for others. Your system would ignore those who cost too much, but might have saved the world one day if they'd been given what they needed. A fundamental understanding of how to disseminate the accumulated knowledge humans have amassed in their various civilizations. Knowledge shouldn't be a commodity, especially not for our children.

The universe brought us into existence? Do you have a link that explains how this was established?

Where this is true, it's usually easy to see the influence of capitalist politics on the funding of public institutions. Defund the system, cap teacher pay, make the whole system look bad and then point to how the state sector is by no means flourishing, which makes the argument of privatization look more appealing, when all it can really do is cost more to teach the same things. Teacher compensation shouldn't be assessed on a bottom-line basis. They're protesting now because we've been trying to keep their pay low for decades as part of a more business-like, bottom-line strategy. You're arguing that they should embrace the very tactics that keep some of them working two jobs. I don't want the education of my country's children to be treated as a financial arrangement, or an investment in a product, or as a means to make them fit into the jobs market. It seems pretty clear that diversity and adaptability help all life forms on this planet. Our educational system should reflect that, rather than trying to develop identical little human widgets to make training them easier and more profitable.

I think you're taking an educational process that flourishes in a non-profit model, and you're forcing it to perform as if it were a private, for profit business. Breaking everything down to a bottom-line cost per pupil means more profit without guaranteeing better teaching outcomes. Some things don't work well as privately owned entities. Education shouldn't be decided by stockholders who care more about money. I also think medicine for profit is a big mistake. Healthcare and profits are very often at odds with each other. Privatizing education is a big mistake, imo.

In the US, we don't have Free Schools. Public schooling is paid for through taxes, and private schools charge tuition. I wish we were like the French in this regard, and required private schools to teach to the national standard. The wealthy and the less than wealthy all go to the same schools, which lessens the disparity among them socially. But that money is NOT theirs. It represents taxes they paid to provide education for the PUBLIC, not just for their children. That's the way public funding works. It belongs to the People, not individual persons. To remove funding from the public for personal use should be a crime. Everyone should be considered the same as far as the knowledge taught in public education is concerned, but we can use many tools to reach individuals in the way that's best for them. That's one way to combat the stupid decisions many parents inflict on their children. It doesn't really matter if I'm not great at maths; my school should be trying to help me understand them to the best of my abilities (because I'm going to need to add up all the money I make succeeding with my fantastic Grammar). I definitely agree that over-standardization can stifle talent. Education needs to evolve along with the population. I still disagree with your product/factory analogy, so claiming "nothing will change that" seems to mean you and I won't be able to discuss that part. Sorry to hear that. Disagreement about allocation of resources is to be expected in any system. I'm not sure I understand your argument about what the average child is worth to public schooling in the UK. Are you saying private schools are more expensive, or less? Actually, I think it's been disastrous in the US to educate people the way we do, and then let them have and raise small children based on such an education. Parents often have very few points of knowledgeable contact until the children enter school around 4-5 years old, relying on their own parents and relatives who were also poorly educated to help this new little person navigate through their formative years. I think (and fervently hope) teachers know more than most parents. I think most parents are too close to the situation and usually have unresolved issues they inflict on their kids. And to add on top of that a highly capitalistic approach to education that takes focus off learning in favor of profit? Sorry, historically bad for all.

I personally would NOT want the average parent weighing in on public education, or at least more than they're able to via representative government. Many of those parents want to drain the public coffers by removing their tax contributions to spend on private schools. Public education is supposed to be taking something that everyone benefits from and investing in it via non-profit processes to reduce costs, provide a tangible benefit to citizens, and provide a standardized curriculum to make sure we all start on the same page. Giving every parent the right of refusal for the knowledge their children receive from public education seems almost criminal to me. I see a LOT of potential for abuse by treating children as products and their parents as customers. How about we treat the children as young humans who need to be exposed to accumulated human knowledge, and less like some kind of profit potential? We're talking about PUBLIC schooling, where the focus should be on teaching rather than making a profit. The school isn't a factory, the students aren't the product, the parents aren't the customers. Public schooling is a contract between you, your child, and the government, who have promised to provide an education that allows people to participate in their own societies at the level they choose.

It's about US$10,000 per pound to bring a payload into space, a finger weighs about 1/3 pound, so it's about $3333 vs the cost of dry ice.

In your OP, you start with one circle, then you ask about two circles. In the above explanation, there's only one circle. Why are you inventing a "general" circle?

Thank you for the suggestion.

! Moderator Note Can you show some evidence to support this? It's not really an acceptable observation to base a discussion on if others disagree.

! Moderator Note Very good. We've established that ChatGPT is NOT a good tool for science discussion. Can we continue to discuss the concept you mention in your OP, or is it dependent on the linguistic AI?

The orangeness happens when you Cheeto penly because you're rash.

Intestinal imbalance issues. Improper injections. Intensive indictments.

Infections, inflammation, and irritants.

! Moderator Note Moved from The Sandbox (which is for practicing LaTex) to The Lounge.

If such an assumption exists, it's probably focused on sudden change, which is almost never good for any species, but especially humans who usually invest quite a bit on their environments. I'm wondering why blame is so important in climate change. It's not like laying the blame at the right feet compels anyone to do anything. Big polluters don't want to be sued, of course, but paying to clean up spills hasn't bankrupted the oil industry. So the obvious reason is that reducing our petrol consumption is Job #1 for climate changers, and hurts one of the most profitable industries in the world, one that has artificially propped themselves up as our premier source of fuel for over a hundred years.

Whenever someone starts talking in absolutes about climate change, I become suspicious they've worked their whole lives in the oil industry, or some other area that pollutes heavily. Otherwise I'm at a loss to explain why we can't "fix anything" unless we prove it was "all man made", and that the destruction of many habitats is offset by supposed "benefits" of destroying other habitats. Warming a previously frozen environment is still going to fundamentally change what can survive there, and you're assuming it's always going to be better. That's not good science. Then tell me how the number of humans compromises that more than the way we treat our environments? Again, it's not the populations, it's our cavalier attitudes towards other species. Change that and perhaps more humans can work greater good.

But it's NOT a fact. The population problem is more likely a distribution/disparity problem. We have the resources for 8B people if we were smarter about their use. The US could support another 25% larger population, based on our food exports alone. If the US were as heavily populated as Europe, we'd have a billion people. We've allowed our greedy capitalism and our oil dependence (among other dirty habits) to determine how our populations design their infrastructure, and we've been observing the decay of that system for quite a while. Climate change is far from an hypothesis these days with all the data we've accumulated. The modeling uses sound methodology, like NASA's Oceans Melting Greenland survey, to show the effects we're feeling. And population just isn't as much of a factor in climate change. It's not the number of humans on the planet, it's what those humans are doing that's more important. Lower fertility actually increases consumption as parents invest more for each child. I think you assume the future is all about more people doing exactly what they're doing now, and it seems obvious to me that some major changes are on the horizon for us no matter how many humans we have.

! Moderator Note Our rules state that discussion can't require anybody to watch videos. Apparently the name of the compound is there for YOU to watch, so please watch again and if you have questions about it, open another thread WITHOUT the video. This thread is closed.

He's a book-banning kidnapper from The Hate State, and wants to be our president. Out of two evils, the jury is still out whether he's the lesser. If he wins in 2024, he wants to have the letters C, R, and T removed from all the alphabet soup.