You have it completely backwards. Most degrees are worthless to employers. Employable skills are not what is taught in college. If you want a good paying job, you should go to welding school. If you want a pile of debt and to live in you're parents' basement indefinitely, get a philosophy degree.

It costs so much because people have been conditioned to be willing to pay anything for it, believing it is essential for future success. And if they can't afford it the government ensures that they can borrow for it. There's no way tuition can possibly go but up until this scenario changes.

There is far more stability in USD now than when it was tied to gold. How soon people forget.

A NYSE stock can only be traded on the NYSE. Bitcoins can be traded and exchanged for dollars on many exchanges, coinbase now being the most popular. The problem isn't even that an exchange shut down, which wouldn't have been a big deal. The problem is that a lot of people trusted that exchange to hold their coins, and those coins have probably disappeared with the exchange.

Despite conventional wisdom that says otherwise, volatility is not the same as risk.

You know... I love the fact that we as a society are so wealthy that we can have soft easy lives. But the idea that we "just aren't built for" doing 6 10 hour days and then taking a whole day off is ridiculous. Someone doing something they're interested in will probably do something like those hours at a minimum.

For most of human history 60 hours would probably not even be sufficient simply for the human need to occupy one's mind, since there weren't always the entertainment options that we have now.

...we could just let people do whatever the fuck they want to do.

Flynt is sharper than any copper knife.
Obsidian is sharper than any copper knife.
Tribal people shave with flint to this day.
There is archaeological evidence of shaving going back 20,000 years.

Increasing relative to what? During the last interglacial all the ice on the planet except for Greenland and Antarctica melted completely.

All this assumes that humans with hundreds of millions of years worth of technological development will not be able to figure out a way to reflect away excess sunlight.

Newton's model made excellent and reliable predictions.

I never put forth the idea that CO2 drives the climate. I'm not referring to only one climate change event. I'm talking about these papers. They do not appear to me to be consistent with the doctrine that CO2 drives the climate.

Petit et all 1999 -- analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
Fischer et al 1999 -- described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
Monnin et al 2001 -- looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
Mudelsee (2001) -- Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
Caillon et al 2003 -- analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.

I don't see how that graph is an example. It shows a warming trend that starts around 1620 and a CO2 increase trend that starts around 1840. Moreover, this time period is useless for analyzing the natural interaction between temperature and CO2, since it is well known that most the CO2 increases since 1840 are because of the increased burning of fossil fuels and not primarily as a result of rising temperatures as has been the case over the long term as indicated by the ice cores.

If only they did. But they don't. Even if they're in principle modelling physics, they end up tweaking all the parameters to turn it into essentially a curve-fitting exercise. That's why after the sudden ice arctic drop in 2008, there was suddenly a "scientific" model that predicted the arctic would be ice free by 2014, which then Al Gore got to tout enthusiastically as if it were science.

If the best models are worthless and have not made any good predictions, should we really "go with them" just because they are the best?