1) Being 77 means there is a higher probability that you are out of touch with reality than someone who is 27. It does not guarantee that comparison in the slightest.
2) Being 77 means you are far more likely to see the world and economics in very antiquated ways and might pine for the "good ol' days" when powerful people whipped the non-powerful into compliance, paid them shit, expected them to be thankful for having the means to buy a can of beans, and carried guns everywhere.

Biden fits neither of those cases. Your MAGA-shite-posting trolling attempts fails at basic logic

Well the problem there is the airline shouldn't be paying these fees. If you enter a territory through a port, you should pay whatever fees the territory chooses to impose. The rest of the costs should be the same for the airline regardless who gets on or off the plane at any airport. No justifiable reason for an airport to charge an airline money that is proportional to the volume of people who arrived on that airline and choose to leave the airport instead of merely pass through.

People here are twisting themselves into pretzels to justify stupid illogical pricing of air travel because of the way stupid illogical costs are imposed here or there.

Demand for air travel is far more volatile than it would be if pricing were reasonable and predictable.

It is these very practices by the airlines that are causing demand volatility. Fixing the pricing would create predictable demand (with the exception of something like a global pandemic)

I should have said pricing for travel should not be demand-driven. Like pricing for health care should not be demand driven. Pricing for air should not be demand driven.

Basic necessities to operate in the modern world should have pricing schemes that are fair, sustainable, and universally accessible. Air travel gets into a gray area because it straddles critical infrastructure level service and pleasure service. But with that in mind, it would be perfectly fair to price air travel in a way not designed to maximize shareholder value, but instead according to actual cost imposed on the providers and society itself and then to devise means to subsidize this to whatever extent is necessary to make it work optimally in that capacity. Corporate travel and travel by the wealthy, for instance, should really be way more expensive than it is now. Travel for vacation should be about where it is now. Travel for holidays should probably be way more expensive because it's currently over utilized and has negative social and environmental impacts.

Travel for funerals or other such things should be cheaper than it is.

Obviously, accounting for all these factors when booking travel is more hassle and paperwork than it's worth. I'm speaking in terms of ideal pricing. However, the intent of the pricing and subsidies should be targeted in that general direction. Airlines need not make people rich either. Nor should utilities. etc.

This

No. If this were not a prohibited practice, all those reasons would vaporize.

All you have to do is require the customer to provide some reasonable notice. 7 days should be more than enough. Even 24 hours is likely plenty.

Easy:

Buy a multi-hop ticket. Invoke the right to not use one or more hops ahead of time. Only be penalized for skipping without advising, not merely for skipping (as long as you tell them with enough time to make things right with the empty seat, bags, and airport plans). Airline wins, Customer wins.

Oh, but the airline doesn't get to invent crafty tricky fare schemes which are effectively price gouging. That's the sole reason they have these prohibitions in place.

Sensible reasons to prohibit skipping booked flight, yes.

But still not justifiable reasons to charge more for a shorter flight. Travel should not be demand-driven. It should be solely resource driven (fuel, time, capacity). And travel to a mix of big and small cities should be mandated or otherwise regulated into practice.
Find another way to subsidize travel that's not charging disproportionate prices.

Because the practice, after all, greatly incentivizes hacking it. No one understands or wants to pay twice as much to fly half as far. It's perverse.

This is just goofy kool-aid drinking fanboiism at it's most perplexingly vapid.

But now, just imagine if we can replace judges with AI too?
And juries? Prosecutors and cops too!
Yes. And then we can finally use AI to implement predictive policing to prevent crime from ever even happening!

The whole point of a âoegameâ is repeatability. Literally why humans use games and game theory.
You try something and see what happens. You draw lessons. You modify your approach and try again.
Without that aspect itâ(TM)s not a game.

No. It is not remotely the âoetown squareâ.
And we should do our damndest to ensure they never consider themselves such and no one ever considers them such.

There is ultimately no such thing as a âoetown squareâ but places meeting that concept clearly have existed. The fact is that people are free to get together and speak their minds. Also, people are free to speak their minds in any public space as long as they are not disturbing the peace.

Thatâ(TM)s all we have a protected right to.
All the rest of this tripe is ridiculous and just because modern technology has enabled more of us to speak anonymously with other people from all over the world does not mean that channel has replaced our existing means of speaking our minds nor does it mean companies have any obligation to protect or empower you to do so. They could enforce a ban on all speech that isnâ(TM)t related to riding bikes, for example. Perfectly fine. Just because they encourage us to chat about most anything does not mean we can chat about everything or say whatever we want. And just because they empower us to chat about most anything does not mean they are a true or even logical or viable replacement for true free speech like what we conduct when we assemble or happen to pass by in public.

Any notion they they might actually be such a replacement must be vigorously denied and defended against.

The last thing you want is private enterprise being the de facto medium for speech. The last thing we want is for Twitter to be âoetoo big to failâ and government depending on it.
Just say no to that concept and put it in the toilet now.

Not a town square. Never was. Never should be. Donâ(TM)t even suggest it. Actively prevent it.

The raving paranoid sociopathic hyperbole is strong with this one.

There is reason to think they are better because they have been shown to induce a stronger immune response (and thus more / more pronounced side effects).

Note this is âoereason to think they are betterâ not âoeproof they are betterâ

I don't really disagree.

In summation, I think we could say that "populism" is an appeal to the shiniest, easiest concept that gains rapid traction among the masses or a subset of the masses and which gives them a sense of "how" or "why" as a means to address their grievances all without a desire for deeper insight or study all without tolerance for nuance or complexities all without tolerance for potential impact on other matters or people.