At my main job we still have tens of thousands of customers connected to GTD-5 switches that were installed in the early to mid 1980s, there is a plan to migrate away, but it sure isn't going fast.

At my side job, we just had brand new data terminals installed in our vehicles last month, they run XP, I understand wanting to keep it around, but installing it new this long after EOL?

They have to let her in to the country, but they don't have to make it pleasant, and they can make sure that she gets detained indefinitely once she's there.

Sure, you have the right to enter your country, and the authorities these days have the right to imprison you indefinitely once you are there... Careful how you play that card.

And yet, maintenance increases as depreciation decreases with age. There have been many studies on this, people feel like it's cheap to drive these old cars, and it can be, but still not as cheap as they think.

People almost always calculate the cost of driving as cost of fuel. I am not aware of any vehicle out there where the cost of fuel accounts for the majority of the cost of driving, it's simply the most visible one. everything else adds up and transit is always cheaper.

That said, I never take transit, I'm just honest with myself that it's not a cost decision, but a comfort and convenience one.

only if 99% are poor at math or live outside a city.

most people choose to only include fuel costs which are an actually small component of the cost.

Unless you go to a full on 6 figure luxury car, the costs are basically the same regardless.
Your beater costs more than you think if you actually track all costs.

Except you get to subsidize transit AND drive, you can't opt out of subsidizing it so there's not really a point to counting those costs when deciding if you should drive or take transit.

Actually though, subsidies where I live are about 50% for transit, so it's STILL cheaper for longer trips.

I highly doubt your cost comparison. You probably forgot to take in to account one or more of the following costs of driving:
-depreciation
-insurance
-registration
-tire wear
-oil life
-licensing costs
-fuel (actually most people include only this one when calcuating cost of driving)

Driving is extremely expensive. I've never seen a case where driving is routinely comparable in cost to transit.

Admit it, Cost wasn't a factor, if transit had been free, you still would have driven. It's about comfort and convenience. I get it, just don't pretend that it's about cost.

Driving is already more expensive than transit almost anywhere and for almost everyone. Full ownership costs for a car in a developed country tend to be in the range of 50+ c/km (80c+/mi) while bus fares tend to be flat rate of $2-6/trip, by the time you hit a 10km trip it's cheaper to take the bus/train.
People drive because of comfort and convenience, not cost (except those incredibly bad at math, which is a group probably large enough I shouldn't completely discount them)

For transit to win over car drivers they need to improve the convenience and comfort. improving cleanliness and comfort on transit vehicles helps, more express routes help, better schedules help.
Trouble is, those improvements are quite costly to implement. (arguably cleanliness is fairly simple, the rest less so)

People will take transit when it stops close to their origin and destination, has few stops on the way, is not crowded, is clean, and comfortable, and departs when they want to travel. It's a tall order.

Of course some cities have taken the opposite tack, they realize it's hard to make transit better, so they are attempting to make driving worse. This is done by intentionally avoiding needed road upgrades, removing driving lanes, blocking routes, adding transit only lanes or roads (make no mistake, they don't "add" them, they replace an existing road or lane). This does actually work. If driving to downtown takes longer than the train, and you can't find a place to park when you get there, you'll likely take the train instead.

"science is hard" is not a valid argument against it.

and this here is a perfect example of why this stuff persists. As long as people want to believe, no amount of evidence is relevant. Anyone looking for actual proof, or consulting actual studies is labelled as a shill, and the lack of evidence that points to the desired result is labelled a coverup or conspiracy.

I can't convince you. So there's literally no point in my trying.

There's really only one way out, but neither side is willing to do it.

Greece should stop paying what it can't afford, just stop repaying any loans.
Everyone else should see that Greece is not fiscally responsible and stop loaning the greeks any money.

This would lead inevitably to greece exiting the euro, printing their own money, and everyone would get exactly what they deserve.

Creditors would be left holding the bag because they leant to someone they knew wouldn't be able to repay
Greece would see runaway inflation, and prices on imported goods so high as to make their eyes water showing them that they can't take other people's money with no intention to repay it without serious consequences.

Unfortunately both sides still want to find the solution that probably doesn't exist where the creditors get repaid and the Greeks continue their current spending spree. That world simply doesn't exist, and really can't exist. But in the absence of that possibility, both sides are doing something that really can be done, they're kicking the can down the road so that their successors rather than themselves have to deal with the (increasingly bad) consequences.

You can't lend money to someone who doesn't take it.

Some are outright scams, in fact it's easy to spot them, they use the legal loophole of labeling their product as homeopathic so that they don't have to prove that it works. If it isn't homeopathic, it has to actually prove that it works.

If any active ingredients are found in a homeopathic medicine, it can not legally be called homeopathic, and will be in contravention of the law if sold as such. It will then actually have to go through safety and efficacy testing like normal medications, and as none have ever passed efficacy testing (as they aren't effective) can not legally be sold.