People will make frequent mistakes if you put the privacy decision at a per post level. (And not just average users: see stevey's Google Platforms rant)
Having different apps, chats (Discord servers), accounts (at-a-push) for each privacy circle is much clearer to average users. Migrating a whole group of any size to another platform is hard, hence many of us are stuck with Facebookk in case we get invited to something we don't want to miss on it, but new platforms will continue to emerge and some will succeed.
There's an interview with the CEO where he explains (claims) the idea of that policy is to reduce demand so they can leave out a couple of toilets and put in / sell more seats -- it's not about the charge for the toilet per se.
May I point out that your counter-argument to "this is a PR stunt" is "no no, the CEO himself floated this idea publicly and got interviewed in the press to talk about it".
On student evaluations, I wouldn't be surprised of Oxbridge do badly as so many pf the dons were at or near the top of their year at the university, weren't employed for their teaching abilities, and seemed unable to comprehend they were not teaching cohorts entirely full of clones of themselves.
Dumbed down it was not, in my experience. Dumbing down would be a way to up the score on these rankings, though.
Contextual offers are just that -- contextual. Cite your sources if you're claiming all independent schools get one tariff and all state schools get another, because AFAIK that's not how these contextual offers work.
Oxford admissions have a heavy interview component: if they think you're really smart, have great potential, and then you'll be of the caliber to get 4 A* no question if you had rich parents and went to a top Public School (but don't, so may not), then -- yeah -- they can make you a lower offer. Their place, their rules.
It isn't dumbing down or taking worse students, it's easing out the rich types who will drink/play lacrosse or rugby/bore to at least Blues standard, are pretty bright but have been spoon-fed to get there so will turn out to be dumber and worse students that people whose potential hadn't been fully revealed by 17/18, even if the spoon-fed cohort get better A Level results.
> if they think you're really smart, have great potential, and then you'll be of the caliber to get 4 A* no question if you had rich parents
Assumed, they really are 4 A* material.
If not, what might happen is, that Oxford might get worse in ratings. Is Oxford getting worse in ratings?
> It isn't dumbing down or taking worse students, it's easing out the rich types
But those rich types already have 4 A*, or they are close to it. Their kids have spent 10 years boarding, learning 10 hours a day, including Saturdays. And then, they are discriminated, because of hate towards the rich.
I guess, what will happen, is that some other universities will pick them up. Kids, who are used to work extremely hard. Kids, who know how to learn. Kids, whose parents and grandparents knew how to apply themselves and who instilled all this in them too.
And Oxford will be dethroned. Cream always rises to the top.
Incredibly good writing throughout... only Armando Ianucci gets close, IMO. Of course he leans a bit more heavily into straight up farce, which may not be to one's taste, but still...
Artists don't reap the profits of the current system -- they get the face value -- Tickmaster and the scalpers do.
My solution would be some kind of auction where people put in bids of what they're willing to pay for different seating types and allocation happens so same-type seats are either sold at their reserve price or sold out at the lowest price they'd sell out at exactly, while maximising revenue -- that would give the revenues to the artists, avoid queues and disincentive scalpers. Legislating for no resale above list price and fair fees would disincentivise TM supporting scalping. TM etc could always negotiate a cut of selling-price-above-reserve to encourage them to do the best for the artist from however the auction works.
Do you have a citation for that? People may have said words to that effect in addition to inciting rioting, but no one has been send to jail for saying that.
> What made Intel seem unbeatable was its process node advantage. Nvidia does not have fabrication plants, so it is able to get the best process node from whoever has it. Nvidia is therefore not vulnerable to what befell Intel.
It's able to get the best process node from /whoever is willing to sell it to Nvidia/: it's vulnerable (however unlikely) to something very similar -- a competitor with a process advantage.
Having different apps, chats (Discord servers), accounts (at-a-push) for each privacy circle is much clearer to average users. Migrating a whole group of any size to another platform is hard, hence many of us are stuck with Facebookk in case we get invited to something we don't want to miss on it, but new platforms will continue to emerge and some will succeed.