It's not an additional mandate. It's allowing people to spend their landline subsidy on broadband instead.

This is how the government works. Congress makes up a rule like "supply telephone subsidy to poor people". Some bureaucrat figures out how to verify that they are actually poor, how to deliver the subsidy, and whether it has to be a voice line or can be a data line.

He's saying a woman is looking for a female instructor. Which makes sense, there's a lot of physical contact that may make some women uncomfortable is cross-gender.

He's also implying that if you search for "women wrestling women" or any similar set of words in Google... good luck avoiding all the (softcore, with SafeSearch) porn.

How do you judge quality? Anecdotal evidence? Government studies? Guessing? How do you account for bandwidth, reliability and coverage in the specific nooks you happen to go in? How do you account for/plan for coverage while traveling?

Price, obviously, is easy to discriminate on... except how do you determine your current, and predict your future, needs on three axes (text, voice and data)? And do you determine your needs and figure out what the cheapest is, or a more complex MxN matrix?

Are customers all on month-to-month where you are? They seem to be mostly accepting 2-year deals where I am.

Most importantly, there are tons of ways to incentivize switching without offering deals to all. Free phones if you bring in a phone offered by a rival, etc. Therefore, companies can compete over hopefully cheap differentiators and not on price or expensive infrastructure.

So you think that telco uses cost-plus pricing and customers use best service/rate calculations?

Dude, on the first point, we're clearly having a tone miscommunication. Sarcasm not going well over the internet.

On the second, it's not a binary thing. It's a continuum. I explained that in this case, supply/demand signals are corrupted, because supply signals are unreliable. Hence, blind faith in that signal is not likely to result in the optimal outcome.

As for your specific area, I'm sorry. But, having no idea where you live, I have no idea why that is.

Well, the point you quoted was actually that your statement was inadequate :-)

But my other point is that the presence of taxis has costs not recognized by either the taxi driver or the customer, and capturing those costs is difficult. Therefore, a reasonable step is not to allow the free market to decide on one variable (the number of taxis), as it will select more than is sufficient. Note, I'm not claiming this will produce a shortage, I'm claiming its required to avoid producing a glut.

This seems like the same concept: insert mechanical devices every X feet. In case of emergency open hole in pipe using mechanical device. Have air flow through vacuum to trapped people.

I don't think it's a bad solution... I think it's the only one. I just don't get how it solves the problems off routing maintenance and testing.

Also, truthfully, I doubt that the airflow would be sufficient, unless you're saying you would open all the possible valves.

And tens of millions more think that they make enough money doing it that they choose to keep driving for Uber, and Lyft, and the other rideshares. Why?

Because the odds of them getting caught while driving for Uber without insurance* are very low, and the high penalty/low risk that will happen if they get into a wreck uninsured are discounted because human beings suck at that.

*Most insurance in the US does not cover drivers going to pick up fares, and Uber only covers while the customer is in the care.

Please explain how implementing the medallion system was a bad law.

Because it artificially limits the number of taxis available

That's some fine circular reasoning. Why is X bad? Because X achieved its stated goal of Y. (For X = medallions and Y=limit the number of taxis available).

There are lot of problems that having as many taxis as the market could bear caused. In no small part because car driving imposes externatlities on others. Therefore, the free market actively over-produces taxis.

Pre medallion-licensed taxi systems may have been fundamentally flawed, but that does not preclude the medallion system from also being fundamentally flawed.

If you advocate removing the medallion system, I think it is incumbent on you to explain what new mechanisms can be/have been introduced to prevent the recurrence of the fundamentally flawed pre-medallion system.

I never liked the concept that developers either have to volunteer help people (at stackoverflow) or donate time (at github) in order to be considered a valuable employee. I mean, for someone with no work history, but beyond entry level??

Do you really want people who will be shown to be wrong within 40 years to be making force-of-law decisions for you on the very things that they are wrong about?

What makes you think that they'll be more wrong than you would be. They have the time to do the research, review the studies, etc.

Of course, they'll be wrong about some things. But fewer, and hopefully of smaller significance.

Or what brilliant thing do you know they are missing?

Yeah, I'd imagine most software on Neptune is written in plain old C. Maybe Assembler, given how long it takes a probe to get there.

How else would you fill a tube with air?

Water should not be set by the market. There is an inelastic element to demand. But you already identified the solution. Households (really, each person) should get a water allowance per month at subsidized rates. I have no desire to subsidize a millionaire's many acre estate.

As a plus side, if they want water for their lawn, maybe they can put up some low income housing on the edge of their property, and use some of their subsidized water.