If you think that's new, think again :-)

Education - college education in particular, but education quite generally, actually - was never about a person's ability to earn money.

That would be a laptop.

In other news, Boeing has entered the car market with 200+ seat busses with some extra features, like jwt propulsion, wings, and the ability of "driving" from London ot New York in 12 or so hours. You need a special permit to sit in the driver's seat though, driver's license won't do ir.

Full disclosure, I didn't really expect you to understand the point. If the majority of you did, your society wouldn't be as fucked as it is now.

You're conflating education with vocational training.

A master's degree isn't for earning money, it's for shaping your intellect.

Tax the wealthy. Prblem solved.

There's roughly a 50k EUR per person average GDP in moat western countries. with a ~4 person average family; i.e. 200k-ish averahe family GDP.

But the average family income is somewhere in the $70k before taxes.

Where's the rest?

Claw it back.

It's not the What, it's the Who.

No they aren't.

  Just don't sign it if you think it is one sided. However - duress is something completely different: a contract signed at gunpoint is of course not valid.

You're either being a troll or the most naive person I've ever met.

Why do.you think people sign work contracts for $7.25? Sign non-competes after separation without compensation? Sign training payback contacts? One-sided notice agreements?

I mean... Nobody's holding a gun to their heads, is there?

Do they do it of the goodness of their hearts?

Spoiler: there's always some kind of power gradient involved. Even the obvious answer "because they're stupid" is a power gradient. And so is a gun, or any other duress situation.

It's a gradual development, and theres's imit to what we will accept as "within personal responsibility of the receiver" or will reject as "abuse of the giver".

First of all, that's not one of the human rights. it's just a general principle of private law.

Second, neither law, nor principles of law/nor human rights even basic ones, are absolute. They all find their limitation somewhere, typically in other laws or human rights.

I can't believe I even need to explain this basic fact of civic knowledge to you; what are you, a 4th-grader?

Cookie popus appeared on EU websites only 7-ish years ago, not 20+-ish.

I should know, I live there. And I was around since a lot longer than 2002 or 2018.

Apparently in our discussion "violation" is an unfortunate word, as you seem to associate that with something bad, undesirable. (As your word "excuse" hints at.)

A "violation" is not nexessarily bad;
but feel free to use "limitation" insteadin your head, if it's easier for you...

Anyway, to the point: it doesn't matter whether something "excuses" something else or not, as this isn't about "violation" being something bad. It's entirely about the concept od 'llimiting" the amount of power that an individual in a poaition of relative advantage can exert over another individual.

We already have those kind of limitations in place elsewhere in contract related laws, and everyone agrees that they're good (e.g. when signing a contract under duress, or when requiring that a contact not be one-sided only).

OTOH everyone also agrees that there should be no limitation when the contract is balanced and there's no power gradient, e.g. when buying a benign pack of candy in a candy store.

What we have here is something in between: nobody is "under duress" strictly speaking, but the situation is anything but balanced. Somebody is (ab)using their position of relative power.

So now the discussion can't be about the principle of it - we've already established that, either way, the principles are sound and within the realm of something we already do.

Instead it's about where to draw the line.

As such, your comment from earlier does nothing to clarify or sustain a point.

"Freedom of contract" isn't holy you know. It is already "violated" by a lot of other provisions deaigned tomprotect those who are at a systematic disadvantage.

This has nothing to do with public ownership of the means of production a.k.a. socialism.

If the courts grow a pair and say "it's obvious the lighter isn't your main product, the ticket is" - because it is/i indeed obvious - then this won't fly.

I can pretty much guarantee you that a gun is next to useless. Id I'm going tontake you I'm putting a bag on your head while two other people grab your arms and lead you into a van.

You won't even have time scream and draw attention to yourself, let alone draw a gun.

If your gun is in your hand, by your side, with safety on, I'll still grab you before you fire it.

If they can read Slashdot, the sandwich is too old regardless of when the parser was born.

Soap itself does a good enough job of killing not just bacteria, but any kind of germs really. No need even for alcohol.