Its not a lie, just a bad manager. The problem for management is that what works awesome at some companies fail completely at others. Company/Department A may be doing great with an open-office scheme, all the employees are happy and productivity goes up 50%. The problem is that a a manager at Company/Department B will try it out without considering in what, if any, ways which A is different from B. if B is the same as A in all the ways which matter, then the manager is a hero. But if B is different than A in some small way, then the manager has committed a big mistake. Sometimes the difference is foreseeable (bad manager) and sometimes it isn't.

Different cultures. Don't assume that just because they are neighbors, Japanese products and Chinese products have the same potential. Japan has a long history and culture of quality and craftsmanship, and these are values which show in their products and services. In Japan people do a good job for the sake of doing a good job. I'm not as familiar with China but when I traveled there, I constantly felt hustled and that people were trying to take advantage of me. Their culture will gladly screw you over to make a dollar.

It is very valuable to grab someone's attention. Stuck in phone support hell? Company not treating you right? 49 cents and you get a piece of paper that someone, almost certainly outside of the small group of people who is treating you badly, will read. If you complain about something specific and actionable, it will be escalated and probably taken care of. 1 letter to CIGNA HQ and I got them to actually do something on my behalf. It took less time to write and drop in our office mail than a phone call to CIGNA usually takes. AND I didn't have to deal with their dreadful phone menu system.

Don't discount 1st class mail just because you aren't using it to your advantage.

Do you have a use for 1200 images per second which is not a very niche purpose?

Why go to all the trouble of actual pieces of paper/stamps/etc? A database keeping track of which person has which vaccine is probably the simplest database there is. I wouldn't use a SSN as a unique identifier but Name+Birthdate+Birthtown is probably sufficient. Make it open to the public on the internet so that we can check our neighbors if desired. Make some APIs so that other software packages can check easily. That kind of information is a public service/right to know. I'm all for the right to privacy but for this information, public health trumps. It boggles my mind that it hasn't been done already, even on a state level.

Frankly it amazes me that it is so hard to find a chip and pin card in the USA now. I got a traveler-oriented credit card a couple months ago. When shopping around the chip and pin cards were really nowhere to be found, despite how useful they would be if I were to travel to Europe. It wasn't a feature high on my list though since I primarily travel to Switzerland and Japan, both of which seem to accept the chip less cards.

What he has done is effectively apply game theory in deciding which coins to target and how to spread his resources. It is quite clever but applying this solution to this style of problem isn't really unexpected.

Not really that amusing. Screen sizes in even the most solidly metric countries are often measured in inches.

In the US, we are given the illusion of freedom and transparency so that we feel superior, poke fun and insults at the systems of other systems, and don't question our own system. Propaganda is most effective when people don't realize it as such. Different methods, same result.

They are pushing the boundaries and making people ask the right questions, which could lead to a "more efficient and more useful solution." My personal gripe is that people assume Uber's model is good, and deregulation is that more efficient and more useful solution. Obviously Uber does not mention the downsides themselves, and the number of people questioning their model as being good for society is typically not substantial.

You're missing the point. This problem hasn't been fixed yet, despite being a known problem for a long time. It could be that come 2038, we find out that the problem wasn't fixed in new machines until 2035. Then it becomes a serious headache.

Yes, but companies kill various programs all the time. Even Toyota and Honda have introduced various electric cars, fuel-cell cars, natural gas cars, etc for lease and axed them just as quickly. Heck, Honda even repo'd the EV Plus and crushed the cars just like the EV1. Usually this happens without incident. The only thing unique about the EV1 is the almost cult-like following that it appeared to generate. This really appeared only after the program was canceled. It would be unreasonable to say that the manager who killed the program made a mistake. The backlash couldn't have been reasonably foreseeable given all the other programs that car companies cancel without incident all the time. Only in hindsight can we say that the canceling of the EV1 was a bad idea for GM. "Don't kill experimental programs or the public will be angry" is the wrong conclusion to arrive at with this case. The correct conclusion is to do all experimenting with new vehicle types on fleet customers or government customers, and not the general public.

No, it is the essence of competition. Every market has rules. The city limits the number of licenses in order to keep the number of taxis reasonable. Many cities also regulate the rates. These are the "rules" of the market. The fact that medallions trade for that much indicates that taxis are still profitable and new players are willing to pay that much for a medallion in order to enter the market. Medallions, in general, are fully transferrable and can be freely sold or traded. New ones are auctioned off periodically. If the market was anticompetitive, the major players would collude and not bid against each other, resulting in lower medallion costs. The fact that people can and do pay that much for one indicates that there is enough competition.

That requirement exists for reasons besides money.

Also, their coverage is considerably higher (in dollar amount) than commercial taxis in major cities. Uber provides this for their drivers.

$1m isn't enough. Most commercial taxis are run by companies which have other assets besides 1 taxi which might be involved in a major accident. They usually have more taxis, the taxi license (which can be sold for a high price, about $1m each in NYC), an dispatcher office somewhere, etc. They also have other sources of income- if one taxi is destroyed and the driver disabled, the others still generate income. If their insurance only partly covers an accident, they can pay it off using the income from the other taxis, sell some of their (considerable) assets, get a business loan, etc.

Compare this with Joe Blow with his 1 car, 1 employee (himself), and no other significant assets. Let's assume a very serious accident involving multiple cars with multiple injuries. At best, Joe escaped the accident unharmed, and only has to buy a new car. More likely, Joe himself was probably injured in the serious accident, can't work for several days/weeks/months, and has his own medical bills to pay. His "normal" vehicle insurance won't chip in for Joe's injuries since it doesn't cover commercial use of the vehicle. The passengers' medical bills exceed $1m, which can easily happen in a very serious accident. What recourse does the passenger have? They have huge bills to pay and need to recover damages from someone, but Joe Blow might very well be destitute. Uber keeps their drivers at arms length so recovering from them is unlikely. The passenger gets screwed and has little legal recourse against a destitute Joe. Getting a $20 check from Joe every month for the next 50 years isn't going to pay their huge medical bills.

Even though the commercial taxi company has less insurance, the passenger is better protected against out of pocket accident costs.