bpt3

> But I don't want a cheaper car anyway, I want better public transport.

That's fine, but you're a small minority in most of the world. People want on-demand transportation.

Sounds like a stock EV is not for you, or the very close to 0% of the world's population with similar needs.

That's ok.

Succumb? They're going to be at the forefront of creating it, reducing their expenses and therefore increasing their profits.

If you're saying that people will just watch other variants of video slop posted on youtube or other free sites instead of paying for some sort of curated entertainment service, history indicates otherwise.

Right. The you (and I, elsewhere) are responding to about this obviously doesn't have any kids or meaningful interaction with their community.

There's nothing wrong with living that way, but their lack of perspective or understanding that most people don't get to decide what mode of communication a medium to large sized bureaucracy uses to inform its members/constituents about information it has to share is something.

While time-series forecasting models aren't well suited for this, I would argue that humans aren't either.

Obviously the best humans are better than average, but this isn't all that surprising to me?

> When there is a road closure it gets pushed to the systems that hook into google maps to reroute navigation.

Sure it does, everywhere. (/s in case that isn't clear, this doesn't always happen in my area which has several Google offices, let alone other less populated areas)

> And short of that, there are also detour signs that redirect you around the obstruction.

Sure, which you could have avoided entirely had you known about the issue.

> If something happened e.g. a snow day at school surely you could call the office and find that out. There is no way twitter is the sole source of that sort of information. I guarantee it is on their school website.

School closures for weather, yes, but not everything, and often they are slow to update, and people would rather not call (and the central office would rather not field those calls).

> You have to remember that the world has to work for the senile old person too.

And you have to remember that not everyone seems to be seeking out inconvenience as much as you.

No one is saying it's impossible to survive without push notifications about local events, they are saying that twitter became a de facto standard for that years ago because it was the best option for publishing small updates by local governments and other similar organizations, and now that twitter has devolved into its current state there is no good alternative and people are slow to change.

Road closures, youth sports/school schedule changes due to things like weather, etc.

Is it possible to live without this knowledge? Of course. But it's not unreasonable to me that people would want to receive this sort of information or that it is of some value to them, or that they'd rather have it pushed to them in an app on their phone than have to call friends or the school office to find out whether the status of some event has changed.

> Your utility will post a highly localized service outage that might only affect 1 block of a city or less to their world facing twitter feed? And not simply alert customers via their phone on file as they've done for me forever?

It doesn't match your very contrived example specifically, but yes essential services in my major metropolitan area provide more useful and timely information via twitter/X than other sources. People don't or can't register for updates from the city or county, so government organizations have no means of publishing information for public consumption other than social media, and twitter was the de facto standard.

Also, many local schools, clubs, etc. used it as their "official" source for updates for years.

You are definitely out of the loop if you can't access it, and places are glacially slow to change.

More money generally equals more freedom, even if you don't know what you want specifically, but you're ultimately talking about a bigger, unrelated issue.

> Who'd imagine squeezing the middle class would backfire epically? Compensation hasn't reflected the GDP per capital increases for the majority of the workforce. I don't think even the productivity increases from personal computers in the end of the 1970's have trickled down.

Why would investments by employers result in higher compensation for employees?

That said, median real individual income has increased substantially since the 1970s: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/mepainusa672n

Pay and money are why people work, so yeah they're pretty important.

Americans have the most disposable income on earth and a very high quality of life.

Trump's obvious graft, corruption, and general behavior disgust me, but why exactly would a meaningful number of people risk throwing their lives away to protest a man-baby who will be out of office in a little over 2 years if a cheeseburger doesn't get him first, and will probably be politically neutered in under 6 months?

> many of whom do more to establish the community you are touting than yourself

Citation needed

It looks like this is a poor attempt to argue for deregulation in the housing sector?

I agree that this is needed, but regulation would be required to compel neighborhoods to allow increased density as well...

If all the things you describe came to fruition, the current residents will have to live with the consequences of their decisions and suffer a lower quality of life (which they don't want to do), and the problem would resolve itself.

Or in reality, desirable locations remain desirable, and the current residents who had a hand in making it desirable have a right to prevent a reduction of their quality of life for the benefit of people who would prefer to live there but are unable to successfully compete with others in the housing market.

Why does it matter? The data sources are cited and are publicly available.

It's basically just documenting the utter stupidity of a trade war with a close ally with whom we are tightly coupled economically.

I assume the data source citations are referencing Census Department API endpoints, I would make the data sources explicit by adding links.

You also might want to consider archiving the data if you aren't already given this administration's tendency to remove data that doesn't further their agenda.

Good lord. At what point do we need to just wipe the slate clean and start over?

> US healthcare system is inaccessible to close to 50% of your population

So you have no idea what you're talking about. What is the point of making comments like this that are both verifiably false with about 2 seconds of online research and just sound incorrect based on anecdotal data to anyone living in the US.

No, the problem socialists have is that most people are smart enough to realize they won't be better off under a socialist regime, to the chagrin of the self-selected vanguard.

Yes it's anecdotal for specific statements, but I'm roughly basing my statement on surveys like this one: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-are-sati...

I find it hard to believe that people who would like to seek care but are unable to do so because of limits on their existing coverage would say that they are satisfied with their medical insurance.

The people who avoid care they need because they can't afford it are a very small portion of the population that gets an outsized share of attention on the issue.

Until public healthcare advocates understand this and make actual attempts to convince the majority of people who are satisfied with the current system that there are benefits, the status quo will remain.

There are many studies from reputable sources (one being the CBO) that say it would result in almost no savings or potentially even higher costs, just like there are many studies like this one that say there will be massive savings with no reduction in quality of care.

I support universal health care, but each side just lobs whatever data supports their position at the other without any real thought. Most people in support of a universal health care system seem to be completely unaware that the vast majority of households are happy with their current coverage (whether they should be or not isn't relevant really) and are not looking for someone who claims to know better to "improve their medical care" through a entity (the US federal government) that is generally not known for improving almost any situation it interacts with.

I personally would like to see Medicare opened up to the public as an option. It's simple, doesn't require anything of anyone who doesn't want to participate, and should be a reasonable test for the claims of cost savings. If it's truly a better option, people will move to it. If not, then the conversion will not happen.

Barring some sort of catastrophic financial or medical event, there is a 0% chance that anyone can make a radical change to the status quo.

No, that’s the rationalization used by basically every collectivist state to compel individual sacrifice when convenient or desirable.

Of course. Did you mean to reply to the person who blamed capitalism for all of society’s woes without any conditions or qualifiers?

It's odd that you've spent so much time in the US and have no idea what life is like here, but feel free to hold whatever opinion you like.

I have no idea why people blame capitalism for things like a lack of socialized medicine (which I support for the record).

It's the American emphasis on individual freedom that results in a lack of government mandates for healthcare. Nearly everyone has healthcare, adding the small percentage who don't to the existing government-run system would not be a major financial burden, and cases like the one you cited are effectively (but not literally) zero.

Historically, there's been a tug of war between people who feel like you should be able to take the chance of financial ruin over an unlikely event and those who think the state should be protecting those people from themselves, leading to the disaster of a system we have currently. That's pretty much the explanation.

Your "argument" is extremely simplistic, and again has virtually nothing to do with capitalism.

Also, many homeless people are content, along with those in jails and small children (whether they are well cared for or not in many cases unfortunately). It's not a remotely good metric for anything other than how agreeable a person is and how low their expectations are.

Right, because socialist and communist states were shining beacons of morality, compassion, and abundance.

It wouldn't, because the vast majority of people whining about how terrible the US is and how great it is elsewhere aren't welcome elsewhere because they aren't a net benefit to their community.