You can but I'd argue that is a mistake.

Here's an example: we know that women take the trait of masculinity into account when seeking a partner. Studies have shown that the amount of masculinity is correlated with the health care quality of the country they grew up in. A Jamaican woman is more likely to select a man with masculine features--hoping to pass on nice strong genes to her child to survive the many problems of Jamaica. However a Swedish woman will be more likely to take a less masculine more androgynous man. The androgynous man may not pass on the strongest genes, but that doesn't matter in Sweden. What does matter is that the less masculine man is more likely to be a caring, dependable father, which is a nice boon for young Sven.

Without context, the Swedish woman's decision seems to be a step backward. (It certainly would seem that way from the Jamaican woman's point of view.) But in the context of modern Sweden, it's a movement forward.

Any trip to Walmart will convince you that the situation today seems less clear, and obtaining children seems entirely disassociated with the ability to attract a mate.

Perhaps actually Walmart shows the opposite--that evolution is quite alive and well.

If we're saying that there is a group of people who are disadvantaged in some way (I guess the thesis on the table is that the Walmart people are less intelligent than others) then perhaps it makes sense for them to start buying lottery tickets--having lots of children--knowing that any one child of theirs probably won't have great genes (and that because of their lifestyle there is no advantage to that one child if they have no siblings) and may not pass them on, but a bunch of children may pass them on, and besides, there may be a bright child in the bunch.

For me it's because I am on a iBook G4 and there is no PPC version beyond 3.6, plus there is no PPC version of Chrome. All I have is Safari (which isn't bad) plus unsupported versions of Firefox and maybe Opera?

Actually I suspect that there would be healthy sales of such a vehicle, it's just that the financials work out poorly. There is just a certain minimum cost for the design and manufacture of a vehicle, and the price of such a vehicle gets too close to larger better equipped vehicles. (The TATA Nano has this problem in India--for just a bit more you get a much better car.) In the US the Nissan Versa is the cheapest car but for a bit more you can get a lot more car.

It's a slice of the market that automakers rather just leave alone.

GM continually sank money into it

And at the same time, they also didn't. They didn't put enough money into designing new models, so in a relatively short period of time the cars were outclassed by rivals. And then GM did the GM thing of going the cheap route, rebadging other GM cars as Saturns. (Some of which were ok, others which you note were crap, but all of which destroyed the brand.)

First generation of the Odyssey was a terrible POS.

But Mercedes? Really? I know they have improved from the craptastic vehicles they put together in the 2000s, but from the horror stories of new ones I read I'd be terrified to own one.

Keep in mind it's all relative of course. I am a Saab guy and I have found them inexpensive to own and repair, though it requires knowing the right people and where to get parts from.

The RFID was made to specifically avoid this cross referencing databases. We didn't want countries to have access to citizen files.

it's a Canadian official, not a US official, that checks your passport. The passport is to help you get permission from the Canadians to enter their country, not to get permission from the US to leave.

This is actually a rather complex example, and your statement requires revision.

The United States unilaterally decided that a passport would be required for land crossings. Canada did not and doesn't give a damn. They'd be happy to let you in with a birth certificate. However because the US now requires a passport to enter the US, Canada has to ensure you have one so that you don't get stuck in Canada for an extended period of time.

A driving license is a privilege and can be taken away. ...Ish. The best and truest example of a state privilege is something like a license for a company to mine in a particular area. The state could revoke that willy-nilly.

The state is much more limited on the revocation of a driver's license. They couldn't deny you a license simply because you're fat, or black, or a woman, or because you've had an abortion. Because of that, there is indeed some type of limited right to apply for and hold a license.

either Japan nor any Japanese company has the financial solvency to undertake such an effort

Japan is a weird country financially. Government debt is high, however many large companies are sitting on cash and the people of Japan have ridiculously large piles of the stuff even if it's not earning any interest.

Japan probably has $3-4 trillion which needs a home.