Your analogy is missing something. Not letting a child explore the world has an opportunity cost. They miss out on opportunities to develop independence and psychological resilience. The book "The Anxious Generation" covers this in detail.
I work at a college, and can tell you that (while everyone views their childhoods with rose colored glasses), at my institution, statistically kids today are less able to cope with difficulty than they were when I started my career.
When I started, the top three reasons for students leaving the institution were a) family priorities (work), b) transportation, and c) grades (overall GPA less than 1.5).
For the 2024-25 academic year, the reasons were a) anxiety, b) grades (overall GPA between 2.5 and 3, with less than 2 'd' or 'f' grades for the final semester), and c) unstated reason related to interactions with faculty or staff (difficult conversations about study habits, or realistic major/timeline conversations).
In other words, they hit one small barrier, or have to shift gears even slightly, and everything goes to pieces.
We don't let them make decisions when they're kids and the stakes are low, and then don't understand why they can't make decisions when they're adults. . . Or, there are a minority of parents that seem to enjoy making every decision for their kids. It's not great.
The best friend I've made as an adult was met through work. Then he took another job, and I moved across the country when I went remote. We still keep in touch and occasionally travel to visit each other.
Most work “friendships” are transactional. Always exceptions of course, like in your case, but it’s important to be clear eyed going in.
A lot of people in my life have had their feelings hurt when their “work friend” stopped talking to them after leaving the company, because they failed to understand this important truth.
The kind of person who can't make and keep friends unless they are forced to work in the same office won't. It that person could keeping touch and would pick friends able to keep in touch, they would keep.in touch with whoever they studied with or was in their hometown.
But, we are talking about someone who need coercion to make friends. And they can be nice super ethical person, but there is that skill they don't have.
At any point in life I keep in touch regularly with about 40-50 people.
Most of them are from outside work. Because "but you spend 8 hours with them every day" is not true for most people. I now work with completely different people than I those I worked 3-4-10 years ago. I have friendships significantly longer than that, and I didn't have to work with them side by side all this time.
Pattern matching + switch expressions + LINQ = more and more of my code is becoming declarative/functional over time.
I have yet to see a realistic technical argument for why more features is somehow bad. If you don't want to use the fancy new stuff you can actually turn the langversion down to whatever you prefer at the project level. Not sure why you'd need to do this unless you were worried about engaging in some accidental convenience or having your filthy nullables more aggressively audited.
I'm curious what you mean when you say "leaving the far-Right shady people to run them (literally Mafia in many locations, and with the Teamsters)". How are you defining "far-right" in this context?
sustained, organized indentured servitude was a fact of work life in many populated parts of the world for more than a thousand years, and is found today in most military structures, hotels and casinos, for example. Here, a working definition of "far-Right" is, descendants of those that enable hierarchical work structures parallel to indentured work, with control & reward structures associated with that.
That's the hard question. Once you have a community that decides to so it differently, you can use democratic consensus or voting (partial exampl Vienna, lots of counter-market public housing), but to get there you either need force or political will for places like boulder (think cutting off any subsidies for private home ownership and replacing then with mandates to have public bodies or cooperatives build dense-but nice housing in their own backyard. Corruption management would of course be an issue, but at least in my country construction is famously corrupt even in the private sector...). For Honolulu I don't know...but is that actually an issue?
The point I'm getting at is that some places are much more desirable than others. In a market, it's prices that act as a mechanism for deciding who can live in a limited space. For example, way more people want to live on the beach than there are houses on the beach.
