26 ms·

yes let’s make all public policy based on your sense of poetic justice. and not numbers. i know cost is just a number to you but that’s other people’s money yo

by ffggvv 6y ago

yes let’s make all public policy based on your sense of poetic justice. and not numbers. i know cost is just a number to you but that’s other people’s money you’re spending

silviogutierrez 6y ago
Believe me, I'm very fiscally skeptical with government spending. Moreover, public transportation costs in the US are outrageous. Each elevator in the tens of millions for an NYC subway station. It's a racket and unacceptably corrupt. But we can tackle both problems, and should. Even with hyper efficient spending, there's an external benefit that is hard to measure and value beyond the cold, hard cash needed for the infrastructure vs government-paid private rides. I've been laterally involved in frivolous ADA lawsuits for websites before, so I also understand how even noble goals can become corrupted.
crondung 6y ago
To him, that money comes from 'government' not your payckeck. This is the kind of person who like many doesn't care -he pays almost no taxes, and votes for other people's hard-earned salary to be given to him. It's one if the issues with democracy - 2 wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner. These are also the kind of people who think people have a right to free housing, so anyone who worked, saved for 20 years, and bought a house, now owes them free lodging. This is why people vote for gop eggheads. Because while those corrupt men steal their money, it's a lot less than the entitled masses try to steal.
mft_ 6y ago
Well, not based on one person, but sometimes making uneconomic decisions based on human decency? That’s the society I’d rather live in. I mean, if numbers are all that matter, I’m fairly sure someone could come up with a model to deprioritise and disenfranchise almost anyone - the disabled, the elderly, the retired...
- yzmtf2008 6y ago
  Is forcing wheelchair users to use subway human decency to you? We're talking about a situation where it's cheaper to let them use taxi service, and it's a better experience. My uncle lives in a wheelchair by the way. The horror of imagining him having to use the subway...
  - ffggvv 6y ago
    yeah the proposal from the original comment also seems more designed to “teach” the billionaire by making him sit next to a disabled person instead of helping the wheelchair bound person. all out of some sort of sense of justice
  - mft_ 6y ago
    That’s not the situation. In the absence of Uber/Lyft (they being positive for disabled mobility) there appears to be no choice: it’s bad slow disabled-specific transport vs... nothing. And the argument was to not do things for disabled people that were uneconomic. So yes, I’d like to give disabled users the option of using all public transport, if they choose. (Having lived in London, many underground stations are actually pretty good - and certainly not below ‘human decency’.) But I’d also like that disabled people have other options, including reasonably-priced taxis.

by ffggvv 6y ago

yes let’s make all public policy based on your sense of poetic justice. and not numbers. i know cost is just a number to you but that’s other people’s money you’re spending

silviogutierrez 6y ago

Believe me, I'm very fiscally skeptical with government spending. Moreover, public transportation costs in the US are outrageous. Each elevator in the tens of millions for an NYC subway station. It's a racket and unacceptably corrupt. But we can tackle both problems, and should. Even with hyper efficient spending, there's an external benefit that is hard to measure and value beyond the cold, hard cash needed for the infrastructure vs government-paid private rides. I've been laterally involved in frivolous ADA lawsuits for websites before, so I also understand how even noble goals can become corrupted.

crondung 6y ago

To him, that money comes from 'government' not your payckeck. This is the kind of person who like many doesn't care -he pays almost no taxes, and votes for other people's hard-earned salary to be given to him. It's one if the issues with democracy - 2 wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner. These are also the kind of people who think people have a right to free housing, so anyone who worked, saved for 20 years, and bought a house, now owes them free lodging. This is why people vote for gop eggheads. Because while those corrupt men steal their money, it's a lot less than the entitled masses try to steal.

mft_ 6y ago

Well, not based on one person, but sometimes making uneconomic decisions based on human decency? That’s the society I’d rather live in. I mean, if numbers are all that matter, I’m fairly sure someone could come up with a model to deprioritise and disenfranchise almost anyone - the disabled, the elderly, the retired...

yzmtf2008 6y ago
Is forcing wheelchair users to use subway human decency to you? We're talking about a situation where it's cheaper to let them use taxi service, and it's a better experience. My uncle lives in a wheelchair by the way. The horror of imagining him having to use the subway...
- ffggvv 6y ago
  yeah the proposal from the original comment also seems more designed to “teach” the billionaire by making him sit next to a disabled person instead of helping the wheelchair bound person. all out of some sort of sense of justice
- mft_ 6y ago
  That’s not the situation. In the absence of Uber/Lyft (they being positive for disabled mobility) there appears to be no choice: it’s bad slow disabled-specific transport vs... nothing. And the argument was to not do things for disabled people that were uneconomic. So yes, I’d like to give disabled users the option of using all public transport, if they choose. (Having lived in London, many underground stations are actually pretty good - and certainly not below ‘human decency’.) But I’d also like that disabled people have other options, including reasonably-priced taxis.