Wouldn't it have been simpler just to keep the sidewalk going on the same side of the river, rather than changing it?

As kids we played it until it was obvious who was the likely winner. Also, I've read that the real rules are different than most people play it (at least, not the way I play it). Apparently, if you land on a square and don't buy it then it's supposed to go up for auction. http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue10/CampaignRealMonopoly1.html .

This was a terrible article. Nothing suggested in the story had anything to do with gender. "We need more lights" because men see in the dark. "Pairs need free toilets" because men don't pee.

well i can see that no one is going to cover these bills

.

Fines alone won't correct unethical behavior by companies unless they are HUGE. Otherwise the CEOs will just take fines into account when calculating profit and doing their dirty business. Any punishment will have to hit not only their bottom line, but their ability to do business. And, of course, any rules to guide businesses away from ill dealings must not have any loopholes.

Not until the fines become a hindrance. You can save/profit $7 million and only get fined $250k? How is that even a choice.
Here's a hint: If the companies stock shoots up the next day because investors thought the fine would be more then you aimed way too low on the fines.
The $5bn on Facebook and $11bn on google are getting there. Equifax's fine? not even close. The company reported revenue of $3.41 billion for 2018 so the 500 - 700m they *might* have to pay will hardly affect the year-end bonuses.

But I need an active volcano for my lair!

I was an unathletic kid, and I personally loved dodgeball. It seemed to me like a good equalizer with regard to the skills of the athletic kids and those who were not. It was quite satisfying to be on a more level playing field, in that sense, and to whack my "oppressors" with a ball. I specifically remember an instance where I was the "last man standing", and held out for another half-minute or so dodging the shots of all comers to the whole class' fleeting admiration.
Now, I suppose there are even less physically-able kids for whom it's as unpleasant as softball or gymnastics were for me, and more fundamentally pacifistic kids who simply find it fundamentally unpleasant. But I'm skeptical that any activity imposed by authority will please all participants. Ultimately I think it's the school environment itself that "reinforces the five faces of oppression".

Wouldn't that be considered texting & driving? That's against the law in my state.

The acceptable answer is Yes.

Why am I not surprised that this post is getting way more views than votes?

There is a parallel argument about the effects of paying kids for good grades. This seems rather effective at raising grades and test scores, but does doing so affect kid's life long ability to learn things once they are too old to get money for doing so? Researchers, educators, and psychologist seem to argue both for and against such a method. However hard data is difficult to come by and emotions run high (finding a place to study this is often difficult due to backlash).

I am a few years out of date on such work, at the least, but there has been some research that show making kids do something, regardless of the reward, causes some amount of habit to stick. What is the most effective way is still an open question, but it seems trying to encourage a kids good habits one way or another is still better than nothing.

But... how do they sell cars there if the salesmen don't all come crawling out saying, "How you folks doing today?"