Sounds like a good reason not to commit traffic crimes then.

Start punishing these people severely so that they might serve as an example to the rest

Has that ever worked?

AFAIK, all evidence says that people don't consider consequences. If they did, they wouldn't be behaving like that in the first place. Punitive punishment feels much much better for people who have a specific set of values.

Yes, it works. The state that I used to reside in has draconian DUI/Traffic laws, and not coincidentally low traffic death rates.

Driving with license revoked or suspended was a serious charge and resulted in impound of vehicle and mandatory jail time. Repeat offenders would have their vehicles seized.

DUI laws similarly brutal. 2nd time offenders faced potentially life-altering charges and penalties. Get into an accident with injury to another person while DUI? Huge jail time. Felony DUI results in permanent loss of driving privileges.

Speeding 20 over the limit? Enjoy your reckless driving charge which is as serious a dui charge.

I read that getting a license back after a 2nd dui carries and average cost of $50k. Getting 2 dui's within 10 years automatically bumped 2nd dui to felony....no more driving for you.

Lax driving laws and penalties do nothing more than get a lot of people killed.

Escalating punishments often tend to take the "1-3%" of the bad people out of society that cause all the crime.

Remember from recent history these people that had 34 arrests or 73 arrests and they're out murdering people?

I mean the serving as an example to the rest part. Has that ever worked?

I mean to your point, when someone is robbing a 7/11, in today's atmosphere, no - no they don't consider it because the punishment is fairly low. In Islamic countries, if you steal you will likely lose your hand (or your head). In those countries people REALLY do consider the consequences.

Now I'm not advocating for the second option there. Just something in between. (obviously a lot farther away than the second option).

> Actually, if you're just looking for "a skilled job" trade school is a better bet than college now.

Better for whom? And better in what sense?

Long-term, on average, post-college careers still blow the trades out of the water in earnings.

In my case certainly, if I had bought into the “trades are better!!” online rhetoric I would be making far less money than I am now, and I get to work remote.

> Long-term, on average, post-college careers still blow the trades out of the water in earnings.

That average has a lot of outliers. There are a handful of degrees which almost guarantee you gainful employment. Like, someone getting a law degree or prepping for hospital residency will make waaay more money than maths, liberal arts, or anything on PhD track. The latter do not have anywhere close to the same job prospects.

Furthermore, some degrees are extremely expensive to get. My guess is you got an engineering or CS degree, which in terms of "degrees with job prospects" are still reasonably priced. You can graduate and go into the work force with little debt (or at least, I did, YMMV). Less so for the lawyers and doctors pushing up the college average, who have to go to more expensive schools and even more expensive post-graduate programs. They rack up lots of student debt in the process. Even if it gives you a higher salary, you might not be comfortable with a decade and change of debt slavery.

Law in the US is actually not that great an overall profession in terms of compensation if you're not talking top schools, white shoe firms, and a prestigious clerkship.

>Who cares?

I do? Why would I want my kids to be consuming crap when they could be engaging with great works and high art?

What if that's not the choice? What if the choice is "engage with art they enjoy and appreciate, or not at all"?

If the works are so great then you've got nothing to worry about. Kids will read them on their own. Of course we both know that's not true, because the works are not that great.

Because what constitutes "crap" and "great works and high art" is highly subjective both to personal tastes and the culture of the time.

They're great works to you, and a slog to them.

They can read Minecraft strategy guides and Yahoo auction fan fics for all I care, since that's a lot better than nothing. I remember not wanting to read what school assigned me and how that killed my desire to read most fiction writing, and would prefer that not happen to more kids.

Art is a matter of taste, and if you go counter to your audience's taste, don't be surprised if they disengage.

I imagine rather than it’ll age like a fine wine.

And the harder the DEI wackos try to ‘balance the scales’ the better it’ll age.

What the heck is ‘dinner money’?

Your parents couldn’t be arsed to cook even a single meal for you?

Most old NIMBYs of past generations who already got theirs.

But enough about the liberal media complex…

I guess we have different definitions of ‘evil.’

Average HN user has happily chugged the sugar coated propaganda from valve, which paints them as a saint which they clearly aren't

Valve has done good things, but I feel like the whole gambling drama went over people's heads for some reason

I’m on Windows 10 and can’t upgrade to 11 even if I wanted to - my hardware is too old to be supported.

I’ve already messed around with a Fedora dual-boot, but now I’m fully planning to go 100% Linux once I get around to building a new computer.

Luckily I don’t really play multiplayer games so I don’t need to worry about the anti cheat issue.

And yet...

The people I know with radiant, flawless skin all use Asian-style skincare with a meticulous nightly regime of like 10 syrups, oils, and unguents.

Everyone I've ever met who says that people shouldn't use shampoo/lotion/face wash because it makes the body stop producing oils has been NOT as attractive - putting it kindly.

if they stop the skincare routine, it will take years to recover to baseline