Arrogant, as is typical of those with a financial stake in a particular version of progress.  This guy is under the belief that his version of the future will happen and that it is his job to help others realise that truth. Technological progress may be inevitable, but that progress envisioned by any particular person is not.<p>Nanodegrees may seem a good idea, and they no doubt make sense financially to google, but that does not make them inevitable.  People have been attending today&#x27;s traditional schools since long before the Aztecs were even a thing (Cambridge 1200s).  There is wisdom in those years.  It may be time to change that wisdom, but it won&#x27;t happen within a generation.<p>Self-driving cars seem likely but are not inevitable.  All sorts of safety-enhancing technologies are dropped for apparently irrelevant reasons.  Why do we sell cars that can break speed limits?  Why do school buses not have seat belts?  Why do planes still have error-prone pilots?  Why are alcohol and cigarettes still a thing?  Each of those have at some point been challenged by technological progressives who though their version of the future was unavoidable.  Each was proven wrong.  Only the arrogant assume the future.<p>fyi, anyone who thinks driverless cars are inevitable should look at the futurama exhibit of 1939.  We were then going to have them by 1960.  Then it was ford.  Now it is google.  I&#x27;ll believe it when I see it.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Futurama_%28New_York_World%27s_Fair%29" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Futurama_%28New_York_World%27s...</a>