yesterdayshero

TL;DR

Overall, based on relatively limited published clinical data, our review does not support using blue-light filtering lenses to reduce eye strain with digital device use. It is unclear whether these lenses affect vision quality or sleep, and no conclusions can be drawn about any potential effects on the health of the retina.

Huge win! What a tense game!

That's not what's being discussed in the article, nor what's being connected in new home builds, nor what's being done at a large scale in NSW. So no, the gas supply being discussed isn't renewable.

Agree. But the government also shouldn't be taking around $50k from these people saying that the wait for a visa is around a year, when in reality it may never happen.

It isn't just about emissions though is it? It's a non-renewable as well.

Yes. I don't personally, but know Kmart at least is cheap for clothing basics, especially for kids. It also has cheap homeware and small appliances. Not everyone can afford to buy expensive brands.

Edit: should also point out, they pretty much have clearance stuff on sale weekly, so people probably go to see what they can get for cheap.

So the article shows public schools aren't getting the funding they should be getting (below 100%), while private schools are more than covered (over 100%).

I'm sorry, but the rest of your commentary is really a straw man. You're just trying to shift focus away from public schools not getting their share of funding, while private schools are getting more. And instead saying that funding shouldn't be the deciding factor on which school to send your kid to. No one said that. The fact is, public schools aren't getting the funding that was committed, while private schools are getting more than what was committed. Giving public schools the amount they should be getting doesn't stop you from sending your kid to private school. And it's disappointing to see people trying to excuse it or shift the focus elsewhere.

Doesn't this article show that the funding received by private schools is actually more in most cases?

Even if funding was exactly the same, private schools are most definitely providing more per student than public schools. Unless you believe those fees being paid are entirely pocketed by the teachers. Where exactly do you believe those fees are going? Those fees, along with the funding, are going into facilities, equipment and personell that public schools simply can't afford.

Sure, the quality of education isn't entirely based on funding. But to sit here and claim funding doesn't help is a little privileged. Kind of like how people who say money doesn't buy happiness, usually have money. It's easy to say money doesn't improve education, when you have the money.

I still don't see why private schools should be receiving more government funding than public schools though.

What's the link you're trying to draw between public/private school funding and catchment areas?

I'm confused. What does this have to do with funding? Are you saying private schools should have the same amount of funding so it's cheaper for you to send your kid to private school?