Eventually, yes, but you forgot a bunch of steps:

• Hide the information in a tiny little link at the very bottom of the terms and conditions that nobody reads.
• Cap the speed and/or amount of data in a way that makes the service completely unusable for 99% of real-world customers.
• Impose income limits that make the service unavailable for nearly everyone who wants to apply.
• Require such a complex application process that nobody who needs the program can figure out how to use it.

Then, after about three years, they show the government that nobody wanted $20 Internet service, and ask permission to stop providing it. And the CPUC, being an industry lapdog, quickly agrees to whatever Verizon asks for. And *then* they stop providing it.

It probably helps to use a ridesharing platform that doesn't use multiple map providers. If all your map data is from one source, you don't have these problems. It's when you start to mix multiple map providers that things go horribly and irreparably wrong, because the workarounds for one platform don't work on a different platform. Given that we're talking about Waymo, I assume Google Maps is used for everything, so I wouldn't expect those issues to occur. But no way to know without trying it at your specific location.

And note that this will change over time, but your rails can't change over time. This is the peril of rail for intracity transit.

Rails make a lot of sense in ultra-dense areas (think Manhattan, *maybe* downtown SF, but not any of the rest of the Bay Area, etc.), because the roads can't handle even a fraction of the passenger volume.

Rails also make sense for long-distance travel. If you're traveling for several hours, you probably don't want to drive that, so it is worth the inconvenience of not having a car at the other end. Also, if the trains are fast enough for their average speed to exceed the average speed of a car, then after two or three hours, you've probably broken even with the extra travel time required to get to and from those fixed endpoints.

But for the most part, rail *doesn't* make a lot of sense, because they're too much slower than air travel for long distances, and they're too much slower than cars for short distances. If you really want rail to work, we need 250 MPH (minimum) bullet trains from city to city so that they are competitive with airplanes. And provide ample parking at the termini.

Twice per hour makes a transit system borderline useless unless you are traveling for multiple hours. Your average latency is half of that, so that means on average you will waste 15 minutes waiting for every train. That means to break even, even before factoring in the extra time to get to/from the station, you need to save a whopping 15 minutes by using the train. And if you have even one connection, that makes your median latency thirty minutes. When you're wasting half an hour just waiting for the train to arrive, you're not only uncompetitive with driving; you're starting to be uncompetitive with bicycling.

Successful transit systems run avery 3 to 5 minutes during rush hour, and no more than about once every ten minutes late at night or on weekends. If you can't keep trains running at that frequency, you aren't dense enough to need a transit system, and you probably will regret putting one in. You'll end up repeatedly reducing the frequency to keep the trains at high enough occupancy to be worth doing, and then you'll be confused when ridership drops because nobody wants to wait that long for a train, and eventually you'll end up with a massively subsidized waste of taxpayer dollars like VTA.

Yup. We're well past the point where the resulting economies of scale benefit the consumer. In late-stage capitalism, economies of scale benefit the corporation and only the corporation.

Full or at typical capacity? Lots of bus routes around here average a low single-digit number of passengers for much of the route. Even single-passenger cars compare favorably to that. Assuming a diesel bus at an average of 3 MPG, you need a minimum of 15 passengers on average to break even with driving single-passenger hybrids. And that's not factoring in how much dirtier a gallon of diesel fuel is compared with a gallon of gasoline.

Office wall Plinko with push pins.

Other then the entire education industry (and it is an industry) and the public sector education system alike spent decades telling people 'don't just go to college to get a job' sure.

I think there are few real issues:
1) The standards for secondary school graduations are to low. Yeah yeah there is so much more to know now; fine but whatever the causes are, diverting time/achievement standards away from mathematics and literacy hasn't delivered the outcome I think society was really looking for

2) We turned college from something specifically aimed at high achievers and persons interested in very specific career pursuits into - something for everyone one

3) We expanded the collage 'experience' to be something that is really unaffordable. Stuff like sports at one time was 'friendly' competition between institutions. Now its big business stadiums that rival professional leagues. Students once ate what was being served in the mess hall that day, now a lot of schools are basically running restaurants 24x7.

4) The size of the administrative staff has ballooned, to support other areas of wild mission creep.

5) we fund all this with student debt, which people then can't pay because (2) has increased they supply of grads well beyond what the labor market demands, and that is how we arrive at people concluding 'it is just not worth it'

They are correct it isn't worth it in terms of personal economic prospects and to whatever degree you can put a price on being 'well rounded' there are probably other ways to meet that personal aspiration that could cost a lot less too.

If you pay for the bleeding edge hardware you'd like to be able use it.

For a really long time games targeted kinda of lowest common denominator so they could enjoy the widest possible market. The console/PC parity era of gaming (as in consoles get the same game with the same engine) really kinda made things suck for PC gamers honestly.

I guess what I am saying is if I shelled out for RTX50[89]0 I'd want to see some really wiz-bang graphics and effects at high frame rates. I don't know if the economics make sense for a developer but I'd rather see studios and game engines target the upper end of the availible hardware spectrum as a consumer. Provided its not just lazy or inefficient software design sucking resources, but actually doing really cool stuff. After all if you can't run a game today, you can always do it a few years from now when a either used RTX5090 is affordable or a budget oriented future 2028 7030 or something hits the market and is able to deliver parity with 2025's flagships.

You know before the ACA a lot of us had really good healthcare coverage that pretty much paid for everything when we went to see a provider.

Now every provider interaction results in piles of unexpected, undisclosed bills that arrive months sometimes full years later.

I am way way more hesitant to seek any kind of medical professional post ACA as a result. This is true for a huge portion of US white collar workers btw.

First of all I don't agree the Kirk demonized anyone; but also that is not power any human possesses, I can't turn you into a demon, but if you shoot someone for expressing their opinion you do it to yourself.

So yes the person who did it and the people cheering are demons you stupid fuck!

it is our business if he expects bring it up in a political debate use it as a motivating anecdote. If he can't say why than its not a real argument.

Almost everything else he said was total lies as well in terms of the authorization for domestic spying and military powers. Democrats had plenty of political opportunities to role back surveillance powers in the Obama era and they did the opposite.

Oh but that was just 'representing us', funny whenever lefists win elections it is always 'elections have consequences this is what EVERYONE WANTED' but someone in the center like Trump wins and then it is 'he's facist!'

Just STFU moron.

Yeah, it is almost like State actors have powers we don't legally afford individuals or some crazy reason like that..

Perhaps but that is a great argument for why the scope of domestic clandestine services and the lengths of times they are allowed to keep secrets away from public discovery is wildly excessive and wholly incompatible with democratic society as implemented on both sides of the pond.

If an action was just (provided society can agree on that thru some kind of republican process) but illegal, then answer is the law should be changed to enable the activity.

Keeping this stuff hush hush for a decade and longer is just a recipe for abuse and excess by agents and at the same time an impediment to implementing the actual procedure and legal framework in place so they have proper tools to do what is required.

Some people are being fired from private employment. Some public employees have been dismissed, but probably only a handful at most. I'll even agree that I find that improper UNLESS they did it while actually on the job, if a teacher tweets something while he/she isn't in the classroom that should not be disciplinary offense.

Exactly nobody is being arrested over anything said about Kirk. Now lets take a look at what happens to you in the UK or most of the EU if you say something obvious like there are only two sexes.

But you are right there are good protections in some parts of Europe. Viktor Orban for example is doing a great job.

RFLOL - An Internet archive in the land of criminalizing speech because it hurts feels and the right to be forgotten.