This is the type of argument I expect to see on Facebook by their mostly uneducated crowds. But here on Lemmy? I thought we were a bit better than that and more rational...

These are completely independent scenarios, with different funding streams, with different problems, solutions and so on.

Yes yes go read my other comments.

If you read my other comments you'll see that I defend exactly what you said ...

Yes I think we both agree with that. It was a misinterpretation on my part of OP arguments: no charging at all vs charging students

but a society which levels the financial burden on the student is imposing an artificial and indefensible barrier on their collective progress.

I absolutely agree with this.

Finally, taxes don’t pay for anything when the funding originates from the issuing entity of a fiat currency.

Not sure I understand your point

A society which charges students to acquire knowledge values neither.

Because this is literally what he said. He never mentioned sports, just charging in general.

I understand his sentiment, but it's not practical.

Read my comment again, you entirely missed my point: I want to think about it as paying it for others. I'm all for it I'll gladly pay taxes to allow others to go study, it's one of the things I'll defend fiercely. An educated society is a better one

What I meant is someone has to pay for it, it's not free lunch. You're right that the students don't pay it through taxes, but someone has to. Myself as a working person do pay for others through taxes

Edit: as people seem to have failed to see my point: I'm glad my taxes help pay for other's studies

That seems like an Utopian view you're not paying for the knowledge but for the resources to learn and accreditation. Universities, professors, etc don't pay for themselves. Even when University is "free" you are paying it through taxes - which is still fine by me.

I don't agree, though, with the prices practiced in the US, that's just a way of restraining the population. Where I'm from, going to college is not expensive, I cannot fathom having to pay those ridiculous prices.

I bought CLion's license for many years for personal use. I could easily work on c++ and python on the same project, and could still use it for Rust (same project or not). I decided to stop with the license when they deprecated Rust's plugin in favor of RustRover. I don't like jumping around between "different" IDEs.

So someone who wrote their own functional operating system and browser from scratch which he is now targeting the public with, is not comfortable learning something new?

You are all assuming that the project will be c++ only when the authors haven't said anything about the matter. Who knows if they aren't open to moving to rust? The project is originally in c++, not only but, because that's what the target OS supported. There are examples of other browser moving from c++ to rust (Firefox) who says they can't do the same?

Let's be honest, we both were childish :)