Just imagine how bad the rent would be (for everyone, student or no) if they hadn’t built up West Campus. It is easily the densest neighborhood in Texas, comparable to Queens in terms of population density. The student loan credit supply definitely bumps up rents around any campus, but please.
To put this in perspective, the key “problem” example in this article is that median rent in a safe, popular neighborhood with relatively new housing stock, in one of the country’s fastest growing cities, is a whopping $916 a month. (And you can still make it less than that if you live with a roommate in a slightly older building)
How has immigration policy in the US become "explicitly racist"? Immigration law has essentially remained unchanged. DACA was repealed, but DACA was an executive action not partial to country of origin. H-1B denials have increased, but based on pre-existing requirements and quotas. Administrative changes in asylum rules and public charge requirements affect every immigrant regardless of country of origin or race.
Regarding H-1B's, DHS almost made a decision to make many people on work visas criminals with a catch-22 situation because of the delays in processing H1 extensions. I wish I was making this up.
So if someone was to say, 'We're going to criminalize Marijuana usage because it'll predominately affect black communities' followed by a law that says 'Marijuana is now illegal' are you insinuating that the policy would not be racist?
Rhetoric in many cases informs policy and vice versa. You can't just say they exist in a vacuum when the reason why the visa ban occured was on racial pretenses.
Muslims aren't a race, the affected countries were about 10% of global Muslim population, and the countries of concern listed in the travel ban were designated in late 2015 under a different administration.
Over 50% of Border Patrol officers are Hispanic; 20% of all ICE employees are Hispanic, with much higher percentage (e.g. 40%) in subsets such as field agents in Southern California.
Since it's perfectly well established at this point that one can be part of a given identity class while still supporting or actively enforcing behavior that's discriminatory towards the same identity class (not to mention inhumane in other ways), this is pretty much a red herring.
It's demonstrated later in the article that he continued to take advantage of short-term business thinking with probable bad externalities all the while and after he was trying to repair his reputation with his Harvard donations and conciliatory speeches.
In particular, the argument is that the critiques offered in conferences like this are insincere and aimed at preserving the insiders' status rather than actually changing any of the things they're talking about: "His career tells us how he would advise those beginning their careers to navigate these challenges: Loudly criticize political dysfunction, but make no effort to explore its structural causes or remedies...[his] prominence conveys that incongruence between words and actions is tolerable, even desired." And further, that it would be "foolish to listen" to said finance people's self-serving political solutions.
A closer equivalent in the tech community would be more like "this guy has spent decades running shady adtech and addictive gaming companies, and continues to traffick personal information and addict kids to pay-to-play games, but is now also running an organization dedicated to digital privacy and is building a reputation as an expert in parenting in the digital age and voluntary gaming regulation".
Yes, big time, because their natural predators have been reduced along with reduced hunting. See [1] for more details about the deer issue in New York. The tick population in the Northeast is absolutely insane. I went camping in one of the "overabundance" areas in that link and killed no less than 10 ticks crawling on me and ripped another 5 or so out of my skin in about a 24-hour period. Compare this to a similar (well-hunted) forest in Texas where I've spent 5-10 days and seen approximately 3 ticks and been bitten once.
It's really not that strange for a chemical to have different effects on girls and boys, anything that affects sex hormones at all or sex-specific development is going to have a different effect.
Well, you can do what you like but when it comes to complex medical issues my winning strategy is to wait for a Hollywood actor, famous musician, or a daytime TV host to tell me what to think.
This logic doesn't apply well to manufacturing (or agriculture, extraction, or arguably a lot of research and engineering). You use a stainless steel fork, because you... don't want to use your hands? You eat Idaho potatoes so you... don't want to starve? Or you use double-pane windows and gas heating because you... don't like freezing to death in the winter? People worked real hard for all of that, but that doesn't mean they're all making less money than the users.
It really is shocking how much has changed in the past 10 years. This post could have been mainstream late-night comedy, but it's not just that the targets have shifted: it's still OK, good even, to attack Sarah Palin, you just can't do it using certain words. The bigger change seems to be this obsession with words having some kind of incantatory, emanating power (even 9 year old words on a Twitter account), along with the associated fiending about the private thoughts of whoever posted.
