genwin

Thanks for explaining. I question my sanity when I see lots of comments and can't tell what's so exciting about a black & blue dress you can change the lighting for.

The guilty parties (where known) are local heroes. The US has a bad reputation in much of the world.

> It really seems like they're throwing good money after bad.

When making rich people richer is the primary goal, it all makes sense.

They should default. A few years later the investors will be back the same as before.

And likely forevermore too. $10 to cross the lake round trip, increasing faster than inflation.

A $5 billion cost overrun is a decent possibility. That's about $20K for every worker in Seattle.

For a 1 bedroom? Wow, guess I'm out of the loop on that.

I didn't support a surface street because it would have stop lights, in which case it wouldn't begin to replace the viaduct. (For some reason the US can't have Germany-style streets that dip below cross streets.)

> The whole thing always had the feel of a land grab for real estate developers, too.

Yep. A quote from the NYT article:

> “They’re talking about greenbelts and all that, but I think it’s a bunch of baloney,” he said. “I think it’s going to be all condominiums.”

I agree, the project is mainly about $700K 1-bedroom condos.

It could hardly have been more obvious that the cut and cover option (trench with a lid "tunnel") was the best choice for the public.

Which isn't worth much in some states, like Texas.

And if it goes to trial, the jury's likely to think in terms of compromising on the multitude of charges (rather than outright rejection), in which case the defendant still goes to prison for many years.

That's a nice chunk but insufficient nowadays. (The 24-year old in that article might've been able to make several $million in his remaining career.) The Lyft driver could still end up on the hook.

Why would it? If you enlarge the scale and find that the principle applies, it's useful.

You never get outside the universe, if it's infinitely large (and there's no evidence to the contrary).

The principle is meant to apply only at a sufficiently large scale. If any particular scale goes against the principle, one can enlarge the scale to see if the principle still applies.

Devil's advocate: She may be as high as she is because of those false credentials, and Amazon might keep her because she's profitable. Falsifying credentials may have a greater average benefit/cost than actually getting the degree.

IMO it isn't more unethical than what big businesses typically do, like take advantage of unfair tax loopholes. Someone else pointed out that requiring a degree is illegal; if so, I'd say it's ethical for people to lie about their credentials when businesses engage in unlawful behavior by screening for them.

Good thinking to be considering the demand. Why not a remote job? Also consider the trend. There's a site that ranks language popularity on a periodic basis.

Degrees are only HR filters. Businesses often care more about profit than principles, so many of them don't care about lies that don't lower profits.

Work teaching is generally efficient. If you're told anything at all, that is; more often you have to ask if you can't figure it out yourself. You can say "I got it, I'll take it from here" and people are happy to hear it. School teaching is generally the opposite.

My bosses always want me to figure out how the algorithm works, while fixing it!

For some, there's a stronger argument against college: you mentally can't abide being taught. Those people need to learn on their own, and for software development there's little reason they shouldn't.

Good story! No one asks about my lack of degree. I don't have an education section on my resume. If they did ask, I'd ask in return how exactly it would matter to getting the work done. I'd expect silence.

There are two types of those: learners and thinkers. The latter have difficulty doing busy work at any speed.

In this case the analogy is: You can ride around on a motorcycle with a helmet that has a "certified" sticker, or no sticker. Same helmet.

If you're convinced you can make better use of your time without college, quit! You could see what the market offers for your current skills, then decide. Work your ass off at enjoying yourself too.

Once while applying for a major company I asked if my lack of degree was an issue, since it was supposedly a requirement. The interviewer said "Our CEO is a college drop-out. We don't care!" When the OP needs to work for Big Corp., he could apply to jobs that say "degree or equivalent experience". There are thousands of them.

A degree is nice to have, but for the price plus opportunity cost (perhaps $200K for the OP) it may be a net negative.

I too have a 40-something friend finishing his degree. He does feel it would have helped his career.

I think it depends on how in demand the jobs are. Where I'm at, having no education section on my resume is no barrier. In my late 40s now, moving to a lower-demand state in a few years. Will see if you're right.

A buddy of mine in Chicago who has been working on getting his degree for decades. It does seem more important there.

I must've gone to the wrong college. Mine was like high school except there was even more busy work to do, and it wasn't free. With most kids focused on their phones nowadays, could anywhere be like you say? I suspect those days are over.

> lots of people go to college for some reason and the ones who are successful are vastly more likely to have a degree than not have a degree

I think it would be hard to find self-teachable software devs who are unsuccessful, degree or not.

I think you'll find that your lack of degree is almost inconsequential. A few job doors will close and otherwise it'll likely be a non-issue.

He could do a rough cost benefit analysis. The break-even time could be very long, considering opportunity cost. Also college could be like prison when you're self-taught.