Time to change that last name either way. It should perish.

I don’t have one in mind. That’s the issue. If I could think it, someone surely would have made it.

Yeah, but it still shows on the bill. My wife wouldn’t like the idea of “paying” for porn. Free is fine though. She is also a bit paranoid, so having my own card would make her uncomfortable.

I’d pay if there was a more discrete way of doing it. Overall, you should pay for the things you want. Or they will go away (well probably not porn). But like local businesses and such.

Conserve thier god given right to exploit everyone and everything for thier short term benefit.

Doh, I thought it was Liechtenstein. I rember three small things from my kids geography quizes… Monaco, Vatican city, and Liechtenstein. So in my mind it had to be one of them. Lol.

Yeah I never understood why ads make so much money. Seems like some kind of gift is going on.

Selling personal data at all should just be banned. It says personal right in the name… Giving away free services with forced adds is exploitation in my opinion. The first step to solving the issue is to require everything have a paid option that gets rid of adds and doesn’t sell personal data for additional profit. The hard part with that is preventing them from just setting the price unreasonably high.

Or… do both. Buy premium because you are actually getting something for your money… a platform. And support ad blockers to stop the ads where the product is just a webpage.

Why worry about the downvoters. This isn’t reddit yet.

Honestly, is that different here? Dogpiling is the rage everywhere. It’s better than reddit, but you still have a hard time if you even question something that follows the dominant ideology here. And God forbid you actually read any of the articles people post and point out that commenter’s are just making shit up to fit that ideology.

Distinction without a difference to the point. The demand was always there. It was never induced.

But the demand was always there. They wanted to move, they just didn’t. So the lane didn’t induce it. The choice of that word was intentional. It was to argue against more lanes. It is really unserved demand that they just ignored originally.

Yeah, the interactions suck. But if dealt with earlier, they could have been mitigated. Same way mass transit does. Express trains. Have a highway over a highway that goes to a specific place. If you stack enough of those, people get on the one they need and go straight to where they need to get. Not realistic though unless planned in advance.

My last paragraph agrees with you.

See you are missing the point. The demand isn’t induced, it was always there. They wanted to move and use thier car, but traffic was too bad. My complaint is with the BS argument that the extra lane caused demand to materialize out of no where. It was always there, just unserved.

People aren’t hitting 60 in LA during rush hour…

People will talk about induced demand and all that. But those people really just want to be able to get around. The fact that they just don’t because the traffic is so bad doesn’t mean you shouldn’t add more lanes. It means you should add a lot more. Same with the one lane at a time approach. The fact that it didn’t work does mean you are doing something wrong, but it maybe that you need to add 5 lanes at a time, not one. Now I’m not saying they should actually do that, just that the arguments against are BS.
A comprehensive public transit system, well maintained and well patrolled is what LA really needs. I am talking Paris metro on steroids. And it is going to cost in the trillions. But it isn’t getting any cheaper by waiting.

That this occurred to someone is just more proof that groceries cost too much.

A possibly interesting read would be about aliens who bring a cure for all illness, but unknown to use it also cures people of the need to get ahead of thier fellow human at all costs. Thus they stabilize the human race which then stabilizes the planet…