How long does it take for people to realize that their car could be making them money whenever they are not driving it?
Like Uber but without actually having to drive people around by yourself.

How long after that do they realize that the most profitable solution is to get many cars and have them driving people around 24/7?

How long after that until the people realize that they don't actually need the car - after all, how many of them are renting their living space already without owning it?

Where it won't work like that right away? Rural areas and small towns.
I.e. Places where there are not enough people to keep cars driving around 24/7 and maintenance costs per capita are higher.
Until someone realizes that there is money to be made in being the only game in town in a place like that.
Probably the same person who is already the only game in town regarding cars - be it selling them or servicing them with fuel.

Also, it's a practical impossibility as long as the cars are running on fossil fuels.
Unless you somehow get the people to breathe exhaust fumes instead of air.

Who "they"?
Is "they" Amazon?

If so, from my personal experience in dealing with returns of damaged items and refunds for rather costly postage (more than the value of the items), your claim will be forwarded to their customer support somewhere in India.
Then it becomes a waiting and an e-mail game.
Then you get a refund.

I've actually had a case where they would refund me a wrong sum, first a completely unrelated smaller one to which I complained, then a complete sum they owed me.
Then I had to remind them that they've overpaid the return, to which they replied "Meh, just keep it."

All you have to do is be persistent and courteous. And you need to have a reason for your claim.

And to Slashdot, just count each request for modding up and each +1 as a "1 question per post".
No need repeating the questions that SuperBanana has already made.
We could, but then what's the point of moderation, right?

http://www.link.nyc/

No.
This is people trying to do something they BELIEVE will be favorable to their PERSONAL idea of a solution to their PERSONAL idea and PERCEPTION of a problem they PERCEIVE.

I.e. It is about as productive as me buying a large quantity of mice traps and positioning them at "strategic locations" around my home because I believe that my neighbor is spying on me with the help of trained mice. Which I know cause I've noticed that he does not particularly like cats.

An obsessive-compulsive action performed because "something has to be done" to fix a PERCEIVED aspect of a potential problem.
Which, even should the problem turn out to be real, is still a mere case of "ANY action is better than inaction".
Be it that my neighbor really is spying on me - or that Sweden has a clear and present problem of rampant sexism which requires warning labels on works of fiction, entertainment and art.

After all, "parental advisory" stickers on works of fiction, entertainment and art REALLY were necessary AND they have both reduced the exposure of youth to "inappropriate material" AND have either reduced or completely eliminated whatever it was that was poisoning the minds of the youth.
Which is clearly visible in the higher quality of humans born and raised since 1990.
They are simply better.

Not talking about the case at hand.
Just in general, as the comment separating the issue into idiots and non-idiots generalizes.

Sadly, you can have both idiots and non-idiots aligned with various sides of any issue, all of which in conflict with other sides of said issue.
I.e. You don't have to be wrong to have idiots on your side and non-idiots against you. And vice versa.

Humans are non-rational actors who value and cherish both rationality and factuality (logic, reason, knowledge) AND irrationality and delusion (feelings, fantasy and straight up cognitive fallacies).
We are walkin-talkin cognitive dissonance machines - and we wouldn't have it any other way.
Cause that would be either robots or... evil.

Is your telepathy a genetic thing or a technological advancement I haven't heard of?
If the latter, I'd like me one of those.
So I too can argue by ad hominem when someone questions the logic or intellectual dishonesty of something I like.

I.e. Replying by guessing what someone meant, calling people sad and... pretending to be a priest? Was that last one supposed to insinuate a moral authority? From clergy?
All while not addressing the non-argumentation and ad hominems of OP's comment with anything more than "It's OK to use slurs and discrimination if I think that slurs are correct and that the discrimination does not exist. For I know who sins and who is pure."

On second thought... You can keep your telepathy helmet. It clearly doesn't work.

There are only two sides and all idiots are on one side only?

Not from my outsider's view on what can only be described as a "crying while jerking off over a first world problem contest".

Just the social justice warriors and 4DLULZ-trolls alone are pretty distinct factions, followed by the "not your shield" brigade and whatever the social justice warriors against social justice warriors are calling themselves.
Also, where are the innocent bystanders and people who don't really give a fuck but still get bombarded with the issue - like me?

No.
The point of racism is legitimization of mistreatment of other humans through dehumanization.

Which includes immaterial and subjective things like hating or fearing someone based solely on the fact of one's personal perception of them.
Racism is a cognitive dissonance which provides reasoning for such behavior.

Wait... You know you just used slurs and verbal attacks based on gender and race solely BECAUSE of someone's gender and race?
Assumed gender and race at that.

That does not seem very "rational, caring, and against all kinds of discrimination" to me.

Sounds more like this.

You know... Like a troll or a truly two-faced, hypocritical bigot who doesn't even realize their own bigotry.

You do realize that what you just said is the same old "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument?

Only _BAD_PEOPLE_TM should feel _NEGATIVE by this _PROCES. If you _GOOD_PEOPLE_TM you should be _POSITIVE with this _PROCESS, whether you are a _DESCRIPTIVE_ATTRIBUTE or not.
Or shorter, "You're either with me, the GOOD, or against me - therefore EVIL."

It's generalization to the extreme, piggybacking on top of a false dichotomy.

Advertizing a free handjob, while it is actually a part of a reach-around.

Assumption one.
Buildings NEVER crash in developed nations or people there simply don't ever get trapped in such situations?

Assumption two.
"Third world" is a place on a map. Probably somewhere in Africa. Which is a country of poor people. Hungry people. Stupid people. Cruel people.
People who lack architectural and other knowledge as well as any care for human lives or quality thereof.
They don't know of building codes cause they are simply not civilized enough.
Or they can't afford to use them cause they are poor. Or greedy. Or lazy.
Or all of the above.

Unlike in developed countries where care for human lives is the only thing valued more than science and knowledge.
That is why assumption one - no accidents ever happen in the "first world" and everyone is kind and good and smart and gentle and caring.
No one would DREAM violating codes in "first world" and that is why god loves them and doesn't send disasters there.

I mean... who ever heard of an Earthquake in California, or a tornado in Kansas, or someone blowing up a building in New York, or any buildings ever collapsing for any reason in USA, right?
Or someone making changes against the building codes or simply violating them... say... in Italy?
Is Italy "third world"? It's just next to Africa.
Or Israel. That's like right there in Africa. They got a desert and everything.
But I could have sworn that South Korea is not in Africa... ah well.

Assumption three.
Yeah... Everyone in dirty, poor, stupid third world countries just doesn't use insecticide.
It's not so much that it is a luxury, they simply don't comprehend how it works.
And again... They don't care for human lives at all.

Assumption four.
Despite being stupid, cruel, filthy, poor, careless etc. - they WILL use super-duper tele-roaches to track people trapped under the rubble?
No money for insecticide - but plenty money for techno toys for rescue services?
No care for human lives when it comes to codes and construction and living in insect free homes - but plenty of care once the people get squashed?

Sounds kinda contradictory. Methinks.