'Drone'
That makes the article special

How about...aircraft.?

"poorimpulsecontrol@foo.com
Yes, she has issues.

As well as teach everyone to be a nurse. And plumber. And car mechanic. And carpenter. And physicst.

Good lord....what stupidness am I reading?

Agreed. I get that. But what the OP seemed to be suggesting was turning your house into a refueling station. No mention of 'payment' for fuel, be it liquid or electrons. With a whole lot of handwaving about 'sharing economy', and 'open to people'.

Yes, on some other planet where electricity is free.
What you propose is no different than having a gasoline tank in your yard, and letting random people come by and fill up for free. When the tank is empty, you get to pay to fill it up again.

What scares me more is the virus and malware creators getting ahold of this technology. If it does what is being claimed, imagine having to write a defense for malware so encrypted.

And why is that a problem? Ultimately the data comes from somewhere, so the more I understand about the source, the better I understand the results. How many studies on climate change were funded by the NSF? The U.S. Army? NOAA? Some land grant university? A private university? Were they funded by Greenpeace? Were they funded by the American Coalition for Clean Coal? Follow the money. If the source of the study's funding comes from someone vested in the outcome, and those results don't fall in the same direction as the other studies, it's not particularly trustworthy.

Rather than belabor my methodology, consider the alternative and look at how the typical person evaluates a topic like climate change: they saw it on Fox News, they saw it in the Huffington Post, they saw it on MSNBC, or they heard it on NPR. Maybe they saw it on Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. Or maybe they got it from their boss, or their preacher, or their social club. Maybe they heard it from their favorite politician, or a sports figure, or some random actress. Now look at who has a financial interest in how climate data is perceived by the public: oil, gas, and coal companies. Is it easier for them to manipulate the data, the studies, the politicians, or the media? Is there a reason they won't try to manipulate all of the above, when the difference could mean trillions of dollars over time?

How would you suggest I get better, more relevant, more trustworthy data than looking at the studies? I may put up a weather station and track temperatures over time, but that only tells me about weather, not climate. I'm not going to Antarctica to drill for ice cores myself, or dig up geological strata to look for evidence of palm fronds in the fossil record. And I'm certainly not going to have 100,000 children so I can track the efficacy of their vaccinations. I have to trust others, so I do what I can with what I can learn.

This wasn't a good idea the first time someone proposed this. Or the second time. Or the 5th, 10th, whatever.
Having ID that I may need to hand to a city/state/federal official, that lives on my phone...is a complete non-starter.

You get the little plastic thing in my wallet. You do NOT get all of my contacts and other information as well.

Being a self-perceived-intelligent pig-headed engineer myself, I think you're missing a critical component in that description. I'm right, until proven otherwise. Show me a trustworthy test, show me trustworthy data, show me trustworthy studies, show me proof from a respectable authority that I'm wrong and I will happily change my mind and apologize to you for wasting your time in having to convince me.

One thing I've noticed about software engineers is that too many of them are lacking the critical statistics skills they need to function effectively. Perhaps it's because we tend to think in Boolean terms of true and false. Thus, "I have a 1:450,000,000 chance of winning the lottery" turns into "I have a chance of winning the lottery", which is a different wording that is remarkably easy to misinterpret as a "50:50" chance, even though both outcomes are statistically equal to false. They apply that same lack of understanding to any risk, including vaccination (a 1:3,000,000 chance of a serious adverse reaction becomes "a chance of a serious adverse reaction".)

In the case of vaccines, I was initially a bit skeptical when it came to vaccinating my son. But it was extraordinarily easy to convince myself that they're safe and effective, and that the one study showing a purported link to autism was completely fraudulent. It took about an hour of research that anyone with a browser and half a wit could do. And because it was so easy to learn the truth, I now hold all anti-vaxxers in that extra-special contempt I reserve for the willfully ignorant. In this case I consider them parties to attempted murder. They threaten society as a whole, either because they're too stupid to do the research or too dull to change their minds.

I have two children with it, and they're at different points in the spectrum. One is closer to "normal." He doesn't grasp social constructs, but if they are explained, he'll happily follow them. So if you fall down a flight of stairs, he will watch, then say "I'm so sorry, can I go get help?" because we've taught him "That person could be hurt. You should check on them and offer help." The other is further out there. She neither grasps constructs nor cares about them. She would laugh about you falling down the stairs because it looked funny to her. If asked if she thinks it hurts, she would probably say "I don't know, and you should ask her." For the first one, these therapies are HUGELY helpful. If taught carefully the rules of society, he'll follow them to the letter, and be happy doing it. For the second one, these therapies are very moderately helpful in curbing the worst behaviors. So, it depends.

In my country there are zero bears (outside a zoo) and zero bear incidents.

Do the people in your country always stay in your country, or do they sometimes travel abroad? (BTW, you made me google "how often do zoo escapes happen?" and while I didn't really get a useful number, it happens often enough that the event type already has a "ten weirdest.")

I think you have nonzero bear risk. In fact, I just happen to know that you, personally, are going to be killed and eaten by one within the next seven minutes.

(Oh wait, or is that seven iceage cycles? Excuse me, I need to go double-check my units. BRB.)

the lottery ticket often has net value for its worth as entertainment. It's fun thinking about what you'd do if you suddenly had $200M.

Have you ever thought about stealing the lottery's entertainment? I can get your $2 entertainment for $0.

It's not like the daydream police have the resources to check everyone's tickets. The chances they'll pull you over, are a one in 175 million!

People don't gamble for a guaranteed payout of the expected return. If that were the case, casinos would consist only of a teller window where you'd hand in a $100 bill and get $70 in return.

You just described exactly how I see casinos. And perceiving it as just a $70-for-$100 offer is what causes it not be fun, which means that I really do get only $70 for my $100. Other people are getting $70 plus .. something else, but not me.

Added:
Don't have kids
Don't get married
Live in a tent in someones back yard.....

Yes, I get that. But generally, there are many, many other places to 'save/invest' $2 week.
Blow off Starbucks once a week.
Let up on the gas pedal 100 yards earlier on the morning drive.
Reduce the pizza guy tip a little bit, once a month.
Give up a vending machine candy bar twice.

Reduce your monthly internet connection plan.

Unless you are seriously, obsessivly, pinching the pennies....$2/week is trivial.