As a Canadian making a decent wage, but not living outside my means, I guess this article explains why I feel like I'm being left behind.
I had a coworker who got a condon and was paying 45% of his income for it, it made no sense. So I keep renting and wasting my money as people say, but at least I wouldn't go bankrupt if something bad happens.
Conspiracy theory, this is related to the changing dynamics of popular media. These advertisers are actually concerned about money going to non-approved media sources. The extremists videos are a happy coincidence / excuse for them to act on.
My parents pulled me out of public school and sent me to a private school that could teach me given my special needs. Best decision for everyone, sucks though that they had to pay my tuition in addition to all the taxes.
Facebook, Twitter, Snap should be co-operatives of some sort, the users are creating the value, at least the popular ones, so they should be rewarded within the system for their continued support and audience development.
Why do you think users of these services create value for free? Maybe it's because the value created for free is less than the value they get out of using these services they create free value for. It is true that these services get money thanks to the aggregated value that is created by all their users but let's take facebook for example, they only make $48.76 per user per year as of 2015 [1]. If they were to pay their users, they could not pay them more than that per year. Not such an interesting deal for anyone involved, even if Facebook was turned into a cooperative with 0 profit. Users would only get $48.76 at best per year and as a non profit, Facebook would probably be way less efficient and therefor only offer half or maybe less than that.
Now Facebook could turn into a paid service and pay its users more but then it would have much fewer users and then way less money to offer and now we're back to paying users little.
Seems like the current deal isn't such a bad one, Facebook connects a massive amount of people around the world including poor immigrants with their family (I know a few) and in exchange these users create value for Facebook. It's a voluntary win-win situation for both parties. Adults entering mutually beneficial deals with each others and enjoying it, what's wrong with that?
I believe you may have some fatal unstated assumptions in there.
The co-op concept doesn't require equal distribution of proceeds to participants. Nor does it require that the net distribution of proceeds equal the total value per user. Nor is incentivizing value creation on your platform a zero-sum game between facebook and content creators.
As a child, I had a learning disability, my school's principal told my parents that I'd never do anything with my life. My parents disagree and so did I, they found a private school that specialized in teaching students like me. The school did some intellectual tests to make sure I could learn, and learn I did.
They spent tens of thousands of dollars so that I could be taught, in that environment I excelled.
I don't trust the government to be a good judge of students abilities, because someone like me would be labelled dumb and be left behind forever.
So you're in favor of separate schools for kids with differing abilities and needs (like you had), but better testing and assessment to determine those abilities and needs? It sounds like you agree with the article.
Naw, I specifically said I don't trust the government.
Parents should be able to choose the kind of school their child goes to... Though, this is unfair to kids with bad parents. That said, people who will (knowingly) be bad parents, shouldn't have kids in the first place.
The basic premise of the article is simply that gifted children do better when separated. It doesn't necessarily advocate for "the government" doing the separation, only that a separation should occur. "Who does the choosing" is a separate debate...
Technically if you were pressing an alternative theory than you would be using 'alternative facts.' Facts are tools or pieces to build something, such as a theory.
We all experience alternative realities and use our 'alternative facts' to justify our beliefs. We all literally do this every single day.
As a libertarian or a marxist one has 'alternative facts' about the nature of humans, society and the environment, from there they build up their world.
'Facts' don't have an independent objective existence, unfortunately. 'Things that occurred' ( the literal etymology of 'facts' ) always require some form of interpretation in order to bring them into our domain of comprehension, and that's where the fuzziness enters.
In epistimology one discusses 'justified belief'; an apparently valid belief obtained in a repeatable and seemingly rigorous manner. But still subject to interpretation through our lens of 'knowledge'.
Think about the current cosmological debates about Dark Energy. Something like 5,000 papers have been published; it seems to be a 'fact' that Dark Energy exists and exerts an influence, but in 200 years from now we might have a justified belief that it does not as some aspects of relativity were incorrect.
> 'Facts' don't have an independent objective existence,
> unfortunately. 'Things that occurred' ( the literal
> etymology of 'facts' ) always require some form
> of interpretation in order to bring them into our
> domain of comprehension, and that's where the
> fuzziness enters.
That etymology is exactly how I understand facts, too. But I think many people don't use the term in that way.
For example, "It's 3:56 pm in the UK" is a fact in my mind.
(It won't be the case in a minute of course.)
The way I see it: facts are like memoized predicates. They are statements of truth within a particular context. Often they need to be re-executed to be kept fresh.
I couldn't get an audience, so I kind of gave up on it.
Maybe the times are more right for something like that these days.
That said, my novel might not have been that good.