There were exceptions, particularly for wealthy folks and people who were 'on the line' income-wise, but the majority got significant financial aid.
Just to give you an idea, from MIT's stats[1]:
* Average need-based MIT scholarship: $47,593
* Students awarded a need-based MIT scholarship: 59%
* Students attending tuition-free: 31%
* Class of 2019 graduates with no student loan debt: 76%
* Average student loan debt for those who borrowed: $23,226
The trope that the expensive schools are the cause of the massive student loan debt problem is just that; a trope. When only 24% of the class graduates with any debt at all, I'm not convinced MIT (and similar) are the problem. This is largely due to MIT and similar schools having massive endowments from which they can draw for Financial Aid; there are cheaper schools, certainly, but they have coffers that are less deep (referring to private schools), meaning students end up having to take more debt.
This is largely due to MIT and similar schools having massive endowments from which they can draw for Financial Aid; there are cheaper schools, certainly, but they have coffers that are less deep (referring to private schools), meaning students end up having to take more debt.
It is reality that expensive schools cause the massive student loan debt problem, but expensiveness isn't totally buried in sticker price but total cost of attendance. Schools like HYSM don't saddle attendees with as much debt despite their high sticker price perhaps because of endowments.
I'd be interested in doing an experiment to act like I'm in high school and want all the info on college applications and to see where I end up.
"As part of our defense, Snopes and our CEO David Mikkelson filed separate anti-SLAPP motions against Proper Media, Richmond, and Schoentrup. Those motions were heard in August 2019, and they were both granted in their entirety, with the court striking claims related to defamation and the advancement of legal fees against both Snopes and Mr. Mikkelson."
The complaint:
http://www.poynter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Snopes-COM...
From here:
https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2017/snopes-is-locked-...
A snippet:
The relationship between the two companies stretches back to the fall of 2015, when Bardav founder David Mikkelson inked a deal with Proper Media to manage all content and advertising accounts for Snopes, according to the complaint. Mikkelson terminated that agreement in spring 2017, according to the document.
“Our termination of the contract was fully in accord with the cancellation provisions of that contract,” he told Poynter in an email. “The contract was terminated because it was highly disadvantageous to us.”
A month after Proper Media filed its legal complaint, Bardav filed a cross-complaint in the Superior Court of California in San Diego County alleging four claims, including breach of contract.
“Proper Media failed to perform its contractual and legal obligations, and Bardav eventually terminated the contract in accordance with its terms,” the document reads. “Proper Media is now wrongfully withholding money owed to Bardav and effectively holding the Snopes.com website hostage by preventing Bardav from moving the website, advertising and other back-end functions to another service provider.”
Bardav signed over a share of Snopes’ revenue to Proper Media in exchange for web services such as management of its back-end advertising platform, according to the cross-complaint. Proper Media alleges in its original complaint, which was filed in early May, that it still has a valid, written contract that the company upheld until Bardav withheld the “accounts, tools and data” it needed to manage Snopes’ operations. The complaint alleges that Mikkelson himself breached the agreement by canceling it.
I was trying to be explicit as to my reasoning. If that came across as "hair-splitting" then I suppose I failed to adequately do so.
The whole point I was trying to make is that people find code in all sorts of ways. And my opinion is that if a public repo, such as GitHub, has a project which could easily be both desired (due to need) and misused (due to intent), then it might be a good idea to put a simple declaration in the project's README.
Given all the blow-back this concept has incurred, I would think the concept is either wholly immaterial or now proven as needed.
This seems to be a strange hill to die on. For all intents and purposes there is a declaration in the readme. And anyone who knows enough to want to operate with this will see that it's fairly basic. Others will likely just reach for a more generic or battle tested solution.
In any case, people should be able to do what they want with their repos and code, assuming legality of course.
it's the latter, not the former. once you're compromised, passwords, changed or not, are no longer an obstacle at all.
password rotation does not increase security.