If this is what passes for grammar and sentence construction in the most scientifically literate country, I really do pity all the rest of us.

The average person should worry much more about their phone being stolen than being interfered with by the government on their way to a protest. Maybe it's time to stop trading off the useful in the name of the hypothetical.

Sure, no problem!

All you have to do to create the environment for IT talent to want to work in government is to get rid of a culture of more importance on process than outcome, a culture of not getting fired even if you don't do any useful work, and power and advancement based more on perception and political maneuvering in front of people who don't know talent when they see it, instead of results. Oh, and constant interference by politicians who can't be bothered to appreciate what your work required, but are happy to use it as a tool for their own means.

I'm sure all that will be easy!

One very simple reason I never use Lyft over UberX: Lyft refuses to put in a fare estimation tool.

So even if they could be possibly cheaper than Uber or a taxi, I'm not going to get in a Lyft not knowing even roughly how much it's going to cost.

I have no idea why they choose not to be transparent about even a rough estimate of my ride cost. Saying that the per-city rate table on their website satisfies that function is a joke.

HUD is a reasonable tool to augment driving information. It makes sense for maps, directions, vehicle alerts. Does not make sense for "luxury" and distraction-causing activities like texting, videos, anything in that area.

Opening up this can of worm is so directly linkable to liability for accidents, that I would be surprised if this company survives the first lawsuit.

Well if there are no ill effects, why don't we raise the minimum wage to $30 so that everyone gets to join in this wonderful phenomenon?

Thanks so much!

Does anyone have a better link to the document to download and view? The browser on that Muckrock site is supremely annoying.

I object to the $15 minimum wage. It should be even higher, like $30. Or for that matter, why don't we make it $50 / hour, if it raises people out of poverty and makes their lives better?

Aside from supply/demand for labor, I see very little factual support for why a wage *should* be a certain level.

This may be a anecdotal comment, so take it for what you will, but I have noticed that Asian buildings and infrastructure technology are so far ahead of us in the USA that it is really embarrassing if you go there and come back and compare.

If you've ever gone to Taipei 101 for example, the elevators move so quickly, and without any vibration as they go up/down that you almost cannot tell if they're moving. Go to Singapore or Hong Kong, and watch how smoothly, quietly, and punctually their subway systems run.

Or go to China and be surprised that in even small-sized cities, you didn't realize that *all* their motorcycles are now electric and they leap-frogged the smelly gasoline phase of motorbike technology.

You come back to the US, and wonder how we're still (maybe) #1, with our rickety buildings and public transport systems. It's embarrassing. And people will say, well, "Who needs quieter, smoother subways? What we have is fine." Said while yelling because you have to cover your ears to not go deaf on the F train in New York City. And as you have to hold your nose as you walk through the piss-soaked, dark and dingy subway/bus station concourses.

Sometimes I feel like we're witnessing the slow decline of American technology / investment when it comes to public infrastructure.

I'm sorry, but I guess I don't understand why this is any bigger deal than cameras on a street corner. Maybe it's having grown up in Baltimore with a police helicopter constantly overhead that's desensitized me.

Doesn't everyone just assume that when in public, everything you do could be observed by someone else? Now, if they were looking in people's windows, that would be a bit creepier.

You must be kidding me. San Francisco has more resources for homeless people than any other US city. Food, shelter (Tenderloin), treatment, charity. That's why they flock here. It's like we're asking for it. And indeed, people voluntarily come, or get sent by other cities to come here. Haven't you had enough of it?

Maybe, just maybe, showing how many resources and $ are being spent to give homeless people options, especially in San Francisco, only to have that money pissed away and people still soiling our streets and public transport systems, tends to decrease how sympathetic you feel towards the chronically homeless?

I'm sorry, and maybe this is just an American bias, but the writing style of the Economist is highly irritating. I finish reading a third of it, and I feel like I've just been given a lecture. Then I toss it in the recycling.

Take this analogy:

What if, as a condition of financially supporting your decision to get married / begin a family (with a boatload of money you couldn't pass up), your parents required that you post an ad to Craigslist and evaluate all reasonable potential spouses who replied? Despite you already having met the person you already want to marry?

I imagine you'd be pretty specific about what you were looking for too.

Not trying to trivialize the situation, just trying to illustrate that it's almost as complicated as dating. There's a lot of things about a candidate that can't be captured in simple qualifications or experience. And staying with a known quantity is way easier than searching for something that may even be better, but highly uncertain.