Well, as usual they offloaded the work on the cheapest contractor, which happens to be homeless people, and they have been dragging their feet. Not the conservative’s fault really, that’s the innate laziness of the working class.
the whole Taylor swift worshipping (from people and media) really irks me because I thought it was not so long ago that everybody was talking about her private jet use and carbon dumping, but apparently it was a long time ago and nobody cares anymore
“Yeah, and I heard the sensei at his dojo was the cousin of one of Bruce Lee’s students. And, like, umm, this one time, this other sensei that came and did a guest leseson with them? He totally said that he knew the pressure chakra chi points that can superkill someone, with only one finger. But he said that we weren’t wise enough for him to teach us that, yet.”
I hasten to add that this is sarcasm, just in case people aren’t paying attention. And everyone, please don’t worship martial arts. It’s just so far beyond cringe.
Any type of “ooo, buT he D03s BJJ, tho” comment counts. Martial arts, in general = cringe throwback 1980s nonsense. If you’re still talking about that shit, in any context outside of the actual sport, inside an octagon, you are just making everyone fucking cringe. Fact.
Having undergone any sort of training is useful, especially, I’d imagine, if you’re a celebrity. Jason Momoa knowing some Jiu Jitsu, whether he’s sparring or not, gives himself another layer of security, if he’s paid attention and attends class diligently.
Knowledge in basic boxing fundamentals, distance management, and wrestling and grappling techniques are very useful in altercations. Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is just one branch of grappling.
None of that is “cringe”.
Have you ever had to defend yourself in a hand-to-hand fight? Training is important and can potentially save your life.
That’s not a “cringe” thing to say either, it’s a fact.
I’m sure your dad could beat up my dad, too. And if you think the F40 is a cooler car than the Countach, that’s also fine. And your Sega Genesis has more Blast Processing than my SNES.
Just, whatever. All the cliché nonsense you want, I’ll just agree with it, because I’m tired of the conversation. You’re stuck in 1989 and I’m not. We’ll just agree on that.
But seriously, I shouldn’t have gone off on you. I apologize for being so snarky. The thing is, I would never go and tell anyone “oooh, martial arts = cringe” inside of a martial arts community. I just think it’s wack to talk about celebrities beating people up, with their mad MMA skillz. At the very least, the person I replied to was taking the meme way more seriously than any meme really deserves. In fact, there’s a whole bunch of way-too-super-serious discussion, under this meme.
Yeah, that’s kinda what I was going for. Arguing about which celebrity could beat up everyone with their mad elite martial arts skillz is absolutely on brand for that movie.
He’s a white belt, so still very much at the beginner phase. He’ll also almost definitely be one of those celebs that only does privates and rarely spars.
He’ll almost definitely have strength and size at his disposal, but in terms of fighting, we’ve already kinda established what would happen at UFC 1. A skilled bodyguard would (I really hope) have solid grappling knowledge, alongside striking.
And a gun (since this probably is the US). Why go to the ground with an unknown person, and risk a stabbing injury when you can threaten someone with a gun?
Never underestimate your opponent, especially a stranger in the public you’ve never met before.
I have a friend who is a retired military police officer. He is built like a tank, tall muscular and intimidating.
He’s the one who taught me never to underestimate anyone. He man handled, beat and fought countless people. But he also admitted that he’d been beaten bruised and hospitalized by people shorter and weaker than him.
When you fight someone in public, you never know who you’re dealing with … he could be an untrained jerk like you and me … or they could be a 150 lb MMA fighter and highly trained martial artist with expert training.
Or the person you’re fighting could have a knife, a pencil, a screwdriver, a piece of glass or their friend or friends you didn’t see or believed wouldn’t interfere all jump you and beat you to a pulp.
For sure the probability of a dandy actor to be match for a psicho, who is preparing since who knows when, for the kill is really high. /s
You know people tend to specialise in a field of activity for a reason. I will go with the punny but we’ll trained and conditioned bodyguards over the “imposing tank” who is said to be tough right about… any time!
You can always just find a game club with more skilled players, teach your friends how to stomp face or just watch them play if it’s that serious.
If your friends know you are skilled and bitch about you playing at your level instead of catering to them, they’re not good people to hang around anyway.
It may not be much in comparison to others, but that doesn’t make absolve me of my debt. Practically every other developed nation has this figured out, it’s long past time we caught up.
It’s only better if you think the opportunities from higher-education should only be accessible for those with a wealthy “bank of mom and daddy” or willing to have a heavilly narrowed scope for risk-taking (such as entrepreneurship) because they start their professional lifes already with less assets than liabilities. (Its not by chance that all celebrated US entrepreneurs of this Age are the scions of at least high-middle class or wealthier parents)
If however you mean it in the Economic sense of the US being as wealthy as possible, then it’s not better: maximizing the access to opportunities is the best way to get the best people for a job doing that job quite independently of who their parents are, as that delivers the maximum productivity, and that’s especially important at the high-value-added professions which are the ones for which higher-education is usually needed - limiting access to higher education and hence high-value-added jobs on the basis of money actual goes against making the US be as wealthy as possible as only a fraction of the most competent people to do those jobs have a chance to get them. In fact the problem in the US is so bad that the country has to import foreigners on H1B visas because it can’t even train enough people for some high-value-added jobs.
All this is just the rightwing, purelly economic argument. I haven’t even touched “leftie” things such as Equality.
I’m not saying that college shouldn’t be accessible to the masses. It is and there are scholarships, state funding and loads to support it. What I’m saying is that we should spend tons of tax dollars on college. The government already spends enough we don’t need to blow away more money by paying this exorbitant prices.
Also the cost of tuition varies widely by where you are going.
Well, I agreed that’s a more subtle take on the whole thing.
A hard-nosed take aiming purelly for maximization of tax take in this domain, requires finding a balance between the additional revenue that well educated people will bring to the taxman (not just directly but also indirectly as, for example, they enable other jobs to add more value) vs the money spent now by the taxman to educate them. This purelly economic take does bring considerations about “what is the future tax value of different degrees” and requires that pupil selection uses as meritocratic as possible criteria - and access to money is definitelly not and indication of merit for a degree - so that university education delivers the best people for the job at the end hence maximizing wealth production and thus tax revenue.
Clearly higher-education for everybody for free would not be tax-optimal but that doesn’t mean that not-universal higher-education with money as the main criteria to filter access to those limited places is better. Certainly the current method in the US of restricted access through ridiculously high fees and a statistically meaningless schollarship mechanism (outside sports schollarships it’s minimal and training athletes is seldom justifiable by economics) to pull it a little bit away from the pure monetary filtering criteria, is also far from delivering economically optimal results and hence a higher return.
Somehow other countries manage to have a huge fraction of the population have access to higher education for pretty modest or even no fees whilst still having a higher per-capita income than the US and require importing far fewer, if any, degree-holding immigrants to generate that higher per-capita wealth, so that would indicate that what’s done in the US now is not at all optimal.
It’s valid to look at higher education as something that consumes resources hence cannot be available with no restrictions whatsoever, but if there is indeed limited access and your objective is the best possible return for the country’s economy or even just the taxman, managing the scarcity that comes from the existence of a limit on the provision of it via a pure pricing mechanism won’t deliver the best economic return for the country or even the taxman because theirs is a strategic interest that goes far beyond maximizing the revenue of universities, which is the only thing that higher university fees optimize.
There might be an optimal fee point for the taxman and the economy, which is not zero, but exceeding it reduces the future returns for both because it makes increasing numbers of people who are “the best for the job” in those high value added domains requiring such a degree to not take the degree, so less competent people end up doing the job hence less wealth gets produced and taxed.
I looked up the University of Cincinnati’s finances once because I never realized they were public. I think UC owns non-liquid non-realestate assets somewhere in the 30billion range. They still ask for donations, despite the fact they could give free education to every student for multiple years.
Most donations are restricted to the purpose of the donation. You’d need to know how much of the endowment is for scholarships. Sometimes schools will have an immense amount of money, but can’t actually lower tuition because the money is tied up in other things. If I give money for an endowment that supports future replacement of electron microscopes, that does fuck all for your tuition.
If I give money for an endowment that supports future replacement of electron microscopes, that does fuck all for your tuition.
Presuming of course that they absolutely weren’t going to replace those microscopes without that endowment. If they were, then that endowment frees up some money elsewhere in the budget. Unless literally every penny they hold has strings attached, then the fungibility of money means they could use general fund money they aren’t spending on X because of an endowment on Y instead.
Presuming of course that they absolutely weren’t going to replace those microscopes without that endowment.
In many, if not most, cases there would never be room in a budget for an electron microscope at your average mid sized or small school. Keep in mind we’re talking about a million+ dollar expenditure.
In many cases improvements like a building or an electron microscope absolutely hinge almost entirely on donations, that’s why they are so attractive to a donor. They can make real lasting improvements to a college or university that wouldn’t otherwise exist.
Even the endowed scholarships that go to assist with tuition are never as big as people think. If you have a $100,000 endowed scholarship. The school is likely only giving $4,500 of that out each year so they can grow the endowment at the same rate they give out money, thereby ensuring future students get more help.
I’ll paraphrase a real world example. School X has a $100 million dollar endowment, with $65 million going to endowed scholarships, that’s only ~$3 million a year for tuition relief. That same school is looking at a $45 million a year budget. Certainly they could chose to spend down their endowment and give their students 2 years of free school… And then what? Pass on the 3 million a year budget shortfall to future students?
I work in higher Ed, I agree the system is broken, but most schools endowments come no where near being able to give free tuition.
Purelly and entirely because when it comes to money with no strings attached, having X + A money (if A is a positive real number) always beats having only X money, hence why lots of people are pointing out Universities with X in the billions of $ which still ask for donations.
It’s pure unadulterated greed, trying to monetise a (not anymore deserved for most in the US) public image of Universities as places that help people have a better future.
Because they like having money? Running a university is legitimately very expensive and there’s always more to do. I think it’s more common with people who went to business school or became pro athletes, etc. They end up with very profitable careers and a fond recollection of their time in college. It’s worth it to the university to ask almost everyone just in case, because sometimes they find that one whale alum.
Athletics is actually petty profitable, since athletes can’t be paid, so the school gets all the money for sponsorships, tickets, merch, etc.
It can actually be a problem for the schools, since athletics isn’t allowed to be profitable. They have to spend all the money athletics brings in on athletics, which is why the athletics department ends up with all the fancy new buildings.
It kinda does do that, just indirectly. Even if the university can’t profit directly off of athletics, a successful sports season increases application rates and donations. Basically it boosts the brand recognition and brand identity of the school.
It’s still painful to me that the class size at my engineering school basically doubled the year after the university won some basketball championship. I don’t want to believe that people, and especially engineers, are that influence-able but the numbers don’t lie
Remind me again, what is it called when the people generating the wealth are not compensated?
It can actually be a problem for the schools, since athletics isn’t allowed to be profitable. They have to spend all the money athletics brings in on athletics, which is why the athletics department ends up with all the fancy new buildings.
Ah yes, that sounds like a great benefit for students getting an education. Also for the academic staff. Must be great to work at a university as a lecturer and know the football coach earns multiples of your salary.
memes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.