Why don't we want that? We will never escape a little unfairness, and we don't need to. Telling a kid that their only path out of poverty is to be an engineer or schoolteacher, but art historian is not an option -- I would love for that to be the worst of our social problems.

> We will never escape a little unfairness

Of course not: IMHO, the unfairness in the current system is preferable to the unfairness you describe.

> Telling a kid that their only path out of poverty is to be an engineer or schoolteacher, but art historian is not an option -- I would love for that to be the worst of our social problems.

You're assuming the sole motivation is to make money, which isn't always the case. Some would be much happier as a poor art historian than a moderately wealthy engineer. Who are we to question that?

It would be hard pressed to argue that the government is offering loans for the ultimate happiness of the student. As the article points out, the lender is smiling when giving the loan but the end goal like any other business should be to get the funds back with interest in a reasonable time frame. If someone were to pursue a degree for happiness the government does not need to be in the business of funding that. They should be funding students looking to create a sustainable life for themselves.

Whatever the merits of the idea, a tv celebrity yelling is not releveant evidence. We can't all follow her path of selling self help books to riches

Eh ad hominum. She can have valid ideas, celebrity or no. I generally don't live her but she is a good start for a lot of people.

Emacs out of the box requires you to learn new key chords.

Educate yourself about the origin of the word "meritocracy". It is enlightening.

If you make some better decisions, you can make some extra money to pay for an article.

Mostly because they found rewarding opportunity as leaders of teams.

Which, again, takes quite some learning to do well.

Is udemy just a scam site that trades ofd consumer confusion in with Udacity?

And a large part of this is Mountain View's refusal to allow housing and deploy public transit, pushing people into becoming traffic.

How very undemocratic of you. Sometimes the law from top down is incorrect. The experiences of stakeholders matters.

> How very undemocratic of you.

Yes, it is. So what? Democracy is not a silver bullet. Some problems it solves well, others it can't tackle.

> Sometimes the law from top down is incorrect.

Sometimes it is. And sometimes it isn't. I argue this is a case where top-down approach is the right one.

> The experiences of stakeholders matters.

I think health and life of innocent third parties should matter more.

I think that in reality, the innocent third parties concerned about their health and life on a road such as this are stakeholders. Moreover, there may be more of them so their needs would trump the few who simply wanted to drive fast and reach their destination 2 minutes earlier.

I'm not suggesting that the non drivers should always get their way though. There are roads where cars are allowed to be driven faster than this, and roads where pedestrians are not permitted.

Sad and interesting. I rear ended a vehicle who turned into my lane, and the officer cited the other driver for an unsafe turn.

I guess it depends on officer mood and how long the car was safely in your lane before the breaking. Mostly officer mood.

Still, there are lots of completely legal sudden braking activities that would cause a collision over 10% of the time. People don't actually drive totally defensively all the time.