vilmosi
Joined 11 years ago
Joined 11 years ago
I honestly thought it was the complete opposite? The whole "being poor is expensive" thing? That buying expensive shoes is economically better longer term vs buying cheap shoes?
I moved to London in early 2013, and it definitely wasn't that popular. I had my own group of coffee buddies but I was the only one drinking it. Even today only 1 in 10 coffee drinkers have it [0].
Note that I did drink flat white all the time back then, it just didn't always appear on the menu. You just had to ask nicely and most people would make you one (or try anyway).
Note that Starbucks and Costa do not make flat white IMO, even if they sell a drink called that.
That said, today is way different and flat whites are everywhere.
[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/flat-white-coffee-c...
I was not a Starbucks customer though.
I would. South Koreans are 2-3 inches taller than North Koreans, plus a miriad of other biological differences, in a relatively short span of time. This is for the same ethnicity, yet alone race.
For me, that alone is proof we are much more similar than we think, and environmental factors, which your hypothetical scenario accounts for perfectly, has a much greater impact on us compared to genetics.
Which is why, for perfectly randomly selected humans raised identically for 200 years, I would not expect significant differences.
Or am I missing something? Original question, what's stopping everyone from defaulting right after graduation?
If student loans can be defaulted, it doesn't matter what the investor thinks or what interest you get or if you're backed up by the government or not.
Even if you study [insert profitable degree], the rational action to do after graduating is to default, since students typically don't have much to lose.
It's not that easy. What's to stop everyone from defaulting?
I'm not sure you read the article. The whole point of a "reasonable person" is that it represents an "average person".
> this person is seen to represent a composite of a relevant community's judgement as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public
This is why we have a jury of our peers picked at random. The randomness is not random.
I don't think it's about regulating words. If you promise to sell a blue dog but sell a green dog, I don't expect a regulation saying blue has to be blue.
It's just false advertisement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person?wprov=sfla...