The trick is figuring out how to make that happen. Today.

You could easily argue that practically non-existent passenger trains and slow adoption of EVs in the US is primarily caused by cheap gasoline. Maybe if we fixed prices to be higher, we’d be able to make the progress we need

I was not trying to argue it, but I can’t see that being allowed where I am. Certainly the parochial school I went to and the ones I sent my kids to, taught actual science. As a science and technology nerd, I know i received an excellent science education from a religious school

This is a good use for standardized testing: my state takes action against schools where kids aren’t up to grade level. Before anyone squawks that this mostly benefits high income: they do adjust it and the action doesn’t just further starve schools in trouble by withholding funds. In the case of parochial schools, they risk losing accreditation

I’d like to see a study going a step or two farther than your article, to develop comprehensive data on where that BS is allowed, where it happens, and authorize the department of education to stomp that out

Yes, even religious schools need to teach kids to the same standards as all other schools. I don’t know if your response is hyperbole, but that absolutely should not exist.

those that do offer different education are in largely high income districts where they have the money to offer those in addition

The first thing I’d want to know is actual data on this. What districts offer these? What percentage? Where? I don’t know enough about this to see a pattern but I know at least one district that is not high income. Is it rare or common? Is it because my state has among the best education systems in the country? Is it because we’re willing to spend more on our kids? Is it because a high cost of living area means that even low income is not low relative to other parts of the country? Gotta ask, but is it political?

Chances are the best answer is to do the hard work, spend the money to improve public education everywhere. I know that’s not always practical, and it would take too long to benefit current kids, but we really need to find a way.

School vouchers have the appearance of helping individual students immediately, but starving the school system just makes the overall problem worse

Given that these vouchers seem to be in effect subsidizing more well-off, ditch the vouchers. As a parent in a good school system, I did send my kids to private school on my own dime. I would never vote for vouchers because I understand it benefits people like me at the expense of the public school system. I’ll always vote to strengthen that. Granted I’d use the vouchers if they were there, I’m not stupid, but they shouldn’t be there.

But I understand the issue: we chose private schools exactly because the one size fits all approach really doesn’t, even in a good school system, and we felt that our kids would be better served with more focussed attention.

I don’t have a good answer but starving your public school is not it. Starving your public school and feeding the better off is very much not it. For your question: we so have public vo-tech schools and I know a kid taking that route in another district. It can be done. I don’t know it well enough to comment on effectiveness, but it exists

I typically use a taxi/Uber on my way to an airport. I at least need room for my suitcase and laptop bag

With ISRO coming on strong, and Russia alienating most of the world, I’m fascinated by what this could turn into in the next couple years

You’d better beIieve that if Republicans were a bastion of sanity and Democrats nominated someone batshit, that I’d vote Republican (or green, idk)

A more reasonable argument is we’re in too much debt, and it will eventually come due, regardless of current fashion.

To go with your analogy of household debt …… there used to be a rule of thumb to keep your mortgage payments under 28% of income, and few other debts , until it was relaxed. Now you have people with debt payments exceeding 40%, even 50% of their income, making it difficult to pay for everyday needs. They’re”house poor”. At what point do we consider a country “house poor”

Yeah, I’ll bet you don’t have the debt we created to pay for our military industrial complex and further enrich our oligarchs

Huh, I thought they were “dog poop sensors”

It could be worse. My ancestors are from a different part of Europe, much closer to the front lines

It’s all on California. It’s not just that a California is big, but they’re the only state allowed to define air pollution regulations. The rest of us can only choose between California or EPA. We’ll follow it if California can hold it together

Not at all. The rules were developed over time as the internet expanded from a handful of us research institutions to the global presence it is today. As other people in this thread mentioned, the present country code top level domain rules were developed from fiascoes like .su and .yu. Now they do have solid rules: they should follow them, regardless of corporate speculation and profiteering

Here in Boston a lot of the commuter rail cars are double decker. I guess it’s an upgrade to carry more people rooms but a better upgrade would be running more trains. That costs money though

Like other people said, I don’t know about subway. You want to be quick on quick off. I don’t usually even sit (even when there’s room )

All those are good things. And yet the UN ranks Massachusetts higher in “human development index”, which is one possible way of quantifying that. Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with Massachusetts?

I live in a place with essentially zero chance of major flooding, but of course there are local floods. In addition to my homeowners policy, I would have to buy three separate coverages for various type of water damage, and at what seems like ridiculous cost for my area and relative to the rest of coverage. I Believe I can’t even get one of the coverages unless I have a sump pump, but my basement is almost always dry so that makes no sense: if I get water in the basement once every decade, what are the chances of a sump pump working after sitting a decade?

Ultimately it just shows ICANN’s inadequacy &/or incompetence,

I’m pretty sure it’s intentional that the owners of the top level domain set the rules for it. Why should ICANN control someone else’s portion of the internet?

This was especially a big deal as the internet expanded from the US to a global presence - you can understand why various countries wouldn’t want US control over their “territory”, wouldn’t cooperate without some form of self-determination

Some amount of organization is a good thing for many reasons. Think of an analogy to roads where basic traffic rules allow everyone the freedom to travel wherever and however but subject to the rules of locales. Feel free to pick your own domain within any generally recognized top level domain, according to the rules established by that tld.

In particular, two character top level domains are reserved for ownership by specific countries. They get to say who can have a presence there, under what standards, and they deserve any profit made from that. This was a way of giving everyone a voice, to expand it beyond the us, to give many interests their own home

The article said companies profit from it, so their prediction is no. It’s just an opinion, and not supported by any legal or diplomatic action in the article.

My opinion is it should cease to exist. Two letter domains are country codes and IANA policy is it should match a list maintained by the UN. IANA has no business deciding for itself and has said it doesn’t want to, and they’re opening themselves to all sorts of liability and complications should they stray from that. If the UN no longer says its a valid country, it needs to no longer be a country code domain, and that’s too bad for any companies speculating on its future