Okay but OP wasn't suggesting it solves for ALL people who can't drive. Reducing human driving is a massive safety win (if they can continue to be safer than human drivers)
It does one better, it holds the passenger who created the mess accountable for the cost and then drops them off the service. You get some bad actors, but you can quickly weed them out.
Doesn't change the service outage piece, but it will get better.
That being said, your key point - people can do what they want in this thing and no one can really stop them, does stand.
He actually does understand most of what he is ruling on which is a welcome surprise. Not just legal jargon but also the technical spirit of what is at stake.
Is it reductive? It also has good incentive for someone jilted or misinterpreting something to suddenly tarnish someone's reputation with little recourse for the other party. It is a one-sided review app for people in a way that people affected may never even know!
Actually from what I have heard, GLP-1 are maybe the first category of drugs which have impact within the median tenure of people on a medical plan (~2 years). It is so significant that you can see ROI within that window which justifies in subsidizing/encouraging patients to use it.
Doesn't disagree with your original claim that there is low incentive for any private insurance to care regarding longevity, but figured I could add some color
Given that the car drops nearly 50% value as it leaves the lot, I'm not sure how this every pencils out before maybe 10 years 100k+ miles...Maybe these days given how hot the used car market is (driven by the expensive nature of newer vehicles), but again this is a chicken/egg problem.
Your loan is exceedingly abnormal or from a past time as the average loan % in the US is much higher on that time scale.
It loses (less than) 50% relative to the list price, which is an important reason not to pay the list price. I'd estimate that the last new car I bought lost less than 10% relative to the price I actually paid (although selling via a dealer would probably lose another 10% or so).
On the loan rate: yes, fully agreed, this was an unusually good rate, and that makes the arrangement much more attractive.
I honestly find DENSITY is the core problem with getting rid of things easily. I've sold nearly everything from a 6-person sectional to a small 10 pack of Chinese tea and everything sells OR you can find a home for it on the local Buy Nothing. Usually I get pickups within 1-2 days on all these things.
It is a great case for more city style density (even in Brooklyn which is closer to 3-4 story walk-ups)
I don't think they were trying to disprove the point. They admit that the US is largely car centric EXCEPT NYC, which is why congestion pricing has worked well. Also, car ownership rates are probably extremely correlated with density/efficiency of public transportation.
There is probably no other city in the US where you can truly eschew car ownership (this includes metro "dense" regions like San Francisco, Washington DC, Boston). Maybe you could include Chicago where there is a heavy amount of density/walkability in most of central Chicago neighborhoods.
You could eschew car ownership in NYC because the public transport network is better than in the rest of the country but it's still shite compared to what is considered 'barely ok' outside the US.
E.g. I. Berlin metro timing is about 5mins between trains and that is long compared to Tokyo metro timing.
But when it comes to density/how direct a public public transport connection exists between two arbitrary points in the city, Tokyo and Berlin are very close (and far ahead of NYC btw.).
What I'm saying is that the feasibility public will be seen as a real alternative or even improvement over using a car only if both topological as well as temporal improvements are blatantly obvious to commuters.
reply