You're a fool for not attempting to understand the subtle point I was making (and how it relates to writing rules for self-driving cars) and an ass for making this discussion confrontational rather than something that could have been productive.
Of course you yield to the right when entering a roundabout, you just don't need a special rule for it, even if it mentions it in the vehicle code. You also don't need a special rule that says "use your signals in a roundabout" or "watch out for other drivers in a roundabout" which it also says in the vehicle code.
Is your point that this video did not encourage bullying or that every website should allow videos that encourage bullying?
If you can find a website to post this video where it will be treated as a pure news story and people have a reasonable conversation about bullying, racism, etc. then great. However, I'm guessing that this video on youtube did not meet that criteria and therefore they have every right, perhaps even an obligation, to take it down. That's not censorship.
Why would that necessarily be so? Even if the commander assumes the suspect is just a clueless idiot, there's still a chance he is a terrorist, so the same precautions are necessary.
Assuming something that almost certainly isn't true can never be a good strategy, can it? Thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of people try to break the airport security rules every day, mostly inadvertently; it just happened that this guy got through. None of those people are actual terrorists (some may be, but they have the day off), so shooting them in the head if they make a sudden move or don't immediately respond to orders barked at them might be overkill.
In essence, expect the best while preparing for the worst.
That's a commonly used phrase that is also a terrible strategy, well evidenced by our overreaction to the very minor threat of terrorism.
Of course, whatever any commander did would involve risk. Redeploying officers involves risking opening other avenues of incursion. Calling for an evacuation risks tipping off the suspect. The suspect might be using some kind of "dead man switch", so couldn't use a sniper, even if one was available. And a shit-ton more potential risks and other issues.
If you really were to assume everyone who violated security rules was a terrorist the sniper option is probably your best bet. There is almost no chance that they would have a dead man switch armed while simply strolling through the terminal, it's best just to silently take out anyone who walks the wrong way past a secure door or tries to smuggle more than 3 oz of liquid through the x-ray machine.
If I was one who saw that man go the wrong way I would have assumed he was a terrorist.
That would be a pretty wacky assumption that would make you do a lot of dangerous things. It would be reasonable to take precautions on the very unlikely chance that the guy was a terrorist, but to assume or presume it would be crazy. (Although that's what people in law enforcement often do.)
I'm NOT claiming the commanders weren't incompetent, only that the scope of responsibility should also include the people deciding what resources to make available.
I think it highly unlikely that the right people will be blamed because they are all working from incorrect assumptions and faulty math.
There are many more options and solutions (and shades of gray) than the four you listed, including "the man is a terrorist, but they don't figure out he is a terrorist." Or perhaps they assume he is a terrorist and do everything they can for the safety of the terminal without actually shutting the entire thing down and costing millions of dollars of waste.
Your calculus also leaves the misimpression that all scenarios are equally likely, which they are not.The response to any situation shouldn't be to assume the worst possible outcome, it should be to weigh the chances of that worst thing vs. the disruption (and cost).
If you were working in security the option you chose is the right one for you - in a flawed system you would make the selfish choice to save your job, even when it is a terrible choice for everyone else.
It was the iPad guy's fault for going the wrong way in a secure area, it is not his fault that the terminal was shutdown. That is all on the overblown security response and the people who happily tolerate it, like yourself.
What is the benefit of having an airport trip be a lottery? Why not just charge people based on the actual cost of their ride?
There's no benefit to the lottery, it was just a half way decent system that worked when they had limited technology (and not much ingenuity). People should pay the fair cost of their ride, but part of that cost is from the driver waiting in the queue or having to drive back to the airport empty. This cost should be borne fairly across all drivers.
Having a system where cabs must compensate for their losses on short hauls with disproportionate profits on long hauls, not only creates volatility (i.e. a driver can have really good days and really bad days), it means that long haul passengers are subsidizing the cost of short haul passengers.
That's bad, but the solution is not trivial.
It also means that considerate people will feel guilty about going on short hauls as they are depriving a driver of his livelihood, and price conscious passengers are turned off from going on long hauls as they know they are being ripped off.
Considerate people may feel this way, but they shouldn't. Short term trips are a necessary part of the system; it may not be good for the one driver who takes you (on that day), but it is better for every other driver behind him in the queue, so it is better for everyone.
At one point it may have been inefficient to exhaustively analyze the fair price for a cab fair or time consuming to bargain with each cab, and the benefit of having simple pricing schemes, outweighed the disadvantages of volatility and a distorted market. Now we have computers that can make price calculations fairly and quickly. Why not take advantage of them?
We're not quite there yet, actually. The problem is that we're in a transition period where traditional taxi companies need to coexist with services like Uber and the traditional companies need to serve people who aren't using smart phones. So there needs to be at least some temporary solution to keep things fair. E.g. an airport could have a short haul queue and a long haul queue. Or they could have the passengers line up at a kiosk where they are matched up with the best driver.
Going to the airport as a taxi driver is like participating in a lottery with a positive expected value.
Absolutely. That was meant to be a rhetorical question. The point being that we could still give them a positive EV without the lottery effect which, IMO, makes everyone less happy.
If you, as a taxi driver, didn't have to take short hauls, your EV increases if you just tell the short haul to pound sand and you go get back in line... Letting drivers cherry-pick fares and ignore short-hauls from any place with a taxi line and then setting a floor on taxi prices or assessing airport/resort fees probably works in a place like Phoenix or Dallas or even LA, but it doesn't work in cities where taxis are a major part of the transportation business
Your EV increases, but it decreases for all the other drivers. Given the hassle to the drivers and passengers from the rejection process this is actually an overall negative. Therefore there has to be some system in place to correct this; I don't see how letting drivers cherry-pick would work well in any market.
Taxi companies have fought hard to get the flag drop and first mile rates they already have. Good luck getting them to raise them further to implement your fix to the system.
The system is broken and disruptive companies like Uber will force some sort of correction. The taxi companies can work with us (the customers) or let someone else come up with a better solution which puts them out of business.
The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.