You'll find the complementary opinion in Mathematics departments -- a general chagrin about the type of mathematics that they have to teach in their service courses for engineers.
Mathematics is a very general tool. As with any very general tool, a lot of the devil is in the details of how to use it in any particular domain.
For this reason, in-sourcing mathematics service courses is best for everyone. The very best math-adjacent departments in every field tend to do this either directly or indirectly. E.g., in the direct model, many CS departments internalize the Discrete Mathematics course and some combinatorics. And an example of the indirect model is Mathematics departments that hire Math Finance professors to cover the service load for econ/fin/bus depts.
I think this in-sourcing (either directly or indirectly) is best for everyone -- mathematics depts don't do a good job at teaching those service courses and often don't do a great job of it in any case. Unfortunately, most departments don't have the headcount (in students or faculty) for a specialized mathematics curriculum, so they have to share the math faculty with N other majors to predictable effect.
The United States at the time of the drafting of the Constitution restricted the vote to white male property owners. Even after the constitution, some states restricted voting to white male property owners (about 6% of the population). Even in colonial times, enfranchised citizens were typically at least literate and often well-educated.
> Even as recently as 1945, the median American only had a 10th grade education.
Again, high school diplomas were more common among the enfranchised population.
> But there's no reasonable definition of the term, whereby you can honestly make a case that the America of 1789 was somehow more educated than the the America of 2019.
I would be completely unsurprised if voters in 1789 -- white male property owners -- were far more likely to have studied the enlightenment philosophers.
I'm not aware of any consumer-accessible supplier who provides ToS that require abuse. In particular, CS doesn't:
"we may at our sole discretion terminate your user account or suspend or terminate your access to the Service at any time, with or without notice for any reason or no reason at all. We also reserve the right to modify or discontinue the Service at any time (including, without limitation, by limiting or discontinuing certain features of the Service) without notice to you. We will have no liability whatsoever on account of any change to the Service or any suspension or termination of your access to or use of the Service. You may terminate your account at any time through the Service’s account dashboard."
And there was certainly meeting of the minds on this term. CF has booted sites in the past due to political backlash. Those boots were high-profile and well-covered in the news. And even without those high-profile boots, any reasonable person will expect someone using CF and running a site like 8chan to know what CF's terms say about terms for continuing service with any/no reason.
If you want your site to stay up even in the event of one of your customers committing a mass murder while your other customers cheer him on, then don't use CF.
It's true that finding another provider might be hard unless you have $$$ because the market for that product is really small -- not even 8chan's original founder is in that target market.
Oh well. I want $0.001 diapers for my kid and a lower grocery bill. The market doesn't provide those either. But if universal access to cheap diapers and high-quality food aren't fundamental human rights, I don't see why cheap anything-goes top-of-the-line DDoS protection services should be.
Tax breaks make a lot of sense when they make previously unprofitable economic activity profitable. Especially if that economic activity is a net good for the local community.
Unfortunately, many corporate tax breaks are created to compete with the municipality next door for economic activity that would occur in any case. The key point is that even if all municipalities banded together and agreed not to TIF, then the economic activity would still occur.
Now, here's the key question: would Wal-Mart (or a competitor) have built all those stores and distribution centers without TIFs? I.e., is Wal-Mart profitable without tax subsidies?
The answer is obviously yes: those stores would still be enormously profitable, so Wal-Mart would still build them. Which means these tax breaks are not creating new value or spurring economic activity that would otherwise not occur! These TIFs are simply a wealth transfer from local taxpayers to Wal-Mart executives and shareholders, orchestrated by playing municipalities off of one another.
Hundreds of millions of Americans pay extra taxes and/or receive inferior services because municipalities won't cooperate in a game of prisoner's dilemma. Great for the Waltons, though.
TL;DR: because allowing municipalities to compete using TIFs results in wealth transfers from local communities to large corporations without creating new economic activity that wouldn't have occured anyways.
It's absolutely the promise of high-paying tech jobs.
People see salaries of FAANG engineers and think that those companies pay well in gneeral, and furthermore that the tech industry pays well in general.
I've seen this first-hand: people were super excited about an Amazon distribution center being built in a town I used to live in. The thought process goes something like: "Amazon says they'll be hiring hundreds of people and that they will train people on the job. Also, Amazon engineers make 100k. Therefore Amazon will hire me, train me, and I'll be making 100k!"
I think the ship has now sailed on Amazon; people today realize that an HQ full of engineers is different in kind from a distribution center.
But the cycle continues with other low-skill and medium-skill "tech" jobs. For a particularly striking example, see some of the rhetoric around the Foxconn plant in Wisconsin...
Fortunately, our current education system is already set up to allow this. With a few AP credits, you can easily major in a STEM field and spend a year+ worth of time on courses outside of CS.
That depends in large part on the philosophy department. More analytic [1] departments will teach lots of courses that could just as well be cross-listed as theoretical computer science courses.
But some departments are less analytic (e.g. departments heavy on [2] and [3] aren't too difficult to find in the US). In those departments, the mode of thinking is very different from what you'll experience in a CS course.
And in both cases, taking a lot of humanity courses will teach you how to write well. Which is definitely a skill that a lot of CS majors lack.
(Also, a course of study in analytic philosophy can definitely help round out a CS major that's too light on the theory courses.)
These discussions often become "either/or", ignoring the possibility of studying STEM and other pre-professional fields while also receiving a thorough introduction to the humanities.
You can study Computer Science while also learning a bit of art history, or architecture, or psychology, or the sciences, or business, or...
And doing so might even make you more valuable to your employer, to yourself/your family, and to society.
> You are a burden on society if you don't have a productive job paying your own way... We believe is education required to be productive, so we subsidize education to get more productive people in society.
This mode of thinking is a great way to churn out lots of well-behaved, competent corporate employees. From this viewpoint, it follows that the path to the upper class is reserved for the already-rich.
Mathematics is a very general tool. As with any very general tool, a lot of the devil is in the details of how to use it in any particular domain.
For this reason, in-sourcing mathematics service courses is best for everyone. The very best math-adjacent departments in every field tend to do this either directly or indirectly. E.g., in the direct model, many CS departments internalize the Discrete Mathematics course and some combinatorics. And an example of the indirect model is Mathematics departments that hire Math Finance professors to cover the service load for econ/fin/bus depts.
I think this in-sourcing (either directly or indirectly) is best for everyone -- mathematics depts don't do a good job at teaching those service courses and often don't do a great job of it in any case. Unfortunately, most departments don't have the headcount (in students or faculty) for a specialized mathematics curriculum, so they have to share the math faculty with N other majors to predictable effect.