Correct. They applying for financial aid, usually via identity theft. They get signed up and stay long enough to get the excess financial paid out, then they leave. Community colleges are rather inexpensive compared to others.

Directly reduces energy costs? I'm a fan of Energy Star... but it doesn't directly do anything. Manufacturers have to make appliances that meet standards and consumers have to actively choose those appliances. Those are the two direct actions. Energy Star accomplishes anything it does indirectly.

Seriously, if they want to be able to rug pull... fine! Quit buying their garbage. They'll wise up in a hurry.

Boy, I thought I had a smart contribution, like "Nah, capitalism will solve it if you can get the Republicans out of the way." You had the hot take, though.

We've been sending money to the telecoms for decades to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure for rural populations. It was done for telephones and Internet. Those telcos had adequate means to build out the infrastructure by blanketing it with 4G/5G service. Go ahead, drive down the highway and exit in a rural area... keep going 3-4 miles away from the highway... your service will be useless. That service could be used with home hotspots to deliver speeds in the broadband range (they already do offer these services... they just wouldn't work in these rural communities).

Now that there is a viable alternative that could actually deliver on the purpose of these funds, we can't do it because you don't like the person that would benefit from it?

I mean, I don't like the subsidies to begin with, but this is lunacy.

Those kids need some reality. I say we all become activists to have him reinstated. If he actually isn't good at the job, then we fire him for that. It will set the record straight about why he is fired. Being fired because of emotions is stupid.

This.

If they can promise big for 5 years from now, their bonuses and pay for the next 1-3 years stand a better chance of looking nice while they search for the next CEO role.

People think they know what should happen and want to use the government as a weapon. Well, you get some "know-nothings" making decisions and stupid things happen.

I love how ridiculous all of the anti-trust stuff has happened over these past few decades. They finally want to take action against Google when their dominance is faltering. The LLM tools, and specifically NOT Google's because it sucks, are implementing better search than search engines and people are using them. So... they don't have a monopoly. A monopoly is not just some party being the dominant (even if by a vast majority) or a long time. It is that they are actively trying to prevent others from entering the space and being successful at it. The main issue has been that others just haven't been able to make a quality product, until this year. Sure, they have done things to try and direct people to their search engine, but it has never been tedious to get around that. You can literally just type a different URL... the other search engines have even purchased advertising so that there is awareness. Influencers on YouTube (another Google property) promote other search engines for purposes like privacy, and more. When you use them, they offer up recommendations for making them your default search engine.

The argument is stupid. And I am not being some apologist for Google. I haven't used their search engine as my default for years. I don't use Chrome. I avoid Google services because I don't like their privacy practices and I think that they're hypocritical with their "do no evil" statement. I do not like Google. This is just a stupid thing on its face.

Right, a "bootloader". Because when it failed... it returned to a DOS prompt.

At least 67% of IT workers seem incompetent.

Leigh Claire La Berge (Author) is one person. The author's name and image are classically feminine. So, there are a couple of options here. We can rather safely assume "she/her", especially if the author doesn't specify something else. Or, if the author has provided something else, we can use the preferred pronouns. However, preferred pronouns as "plural"? No. It is NOT neutral. It is representative of plural. There are singular ambiguous pronouns that exist in the English language. We could say "one" as an ambiguous singular pronoun. When studying language, that is what we translate other languages' indeterminate singular 3rd person pronouns to be. German effectively has four 3rd person singular pronouns: er/sie/es/man... respectively translating to he/she/it/one. English had this in the past prior to the Norman's coming in and trying to destroy the language.

There are more impacts than carbon-neutrality. Responsibly sourcing renewable energy is crucial, as well. For instance, stop clearing land from its current use to make a solar farm; instead, use the roof space that we have or find some other use that it creates an additional benefit beyond energy production, like shading pavement to reduce microclimate impacts (parking lots, sidewalks, etc.)

The big trend to bash grass and promote rocks is horribly shortsighted because those rocks make microclimates, often times near the buildings that we're climate controlling.

Further, being responsible with usage is still needed. If you waste "renewable" energy or think of it as "free", you've missed the boat. When you use renewables, it is still necessary to be energy conscious because if you're wasting it, you're contributing to fossil fuel usage, as well, because that energy could have offset more of it. Only when we are producing more than we need can we really be relaxed about it.

It is clearly legal? No, it is just nuanced enough to not receive a significant challenge, yet. Or maybe the SCOTUS is just tired of dealing with it.

Hell, exceeding speed limits is illegal, but if it is barely enforced, it doesn't amount to much. Even when the law enforcement is strict with the law, they have to be present to do something about it... and they rarely are. Getting away with something doesn't make it legal.

Yeah, I don't trust those sources. That doesn't align with reality and every other source I have seen. Funding has increased higher than so many other sectors. And given that The Ohio State University is not an unbiased party... I don't trust it.

That is a part of the problem, certainly... a big part. But the root cause is usually simpler. Schools raise the tuition because the money is there for them to grab. Since financial aid is available, they expect students to get it all... grants and loans. Their expectation isn't misplaced, either... because students do it. So, now they have the money and they can spend it on a top heavy administration.