> I think it’s valid because it’s an example of a system not working for a small minority while still working well for others. That's not what the article ment

> I think it’s valid because it’s an example of a system not working for a small minority while still working well for others. That's not what the article mentioned, which is why people are saying you don't seem to understand. The article mentioned there is a system, which does work for a small minority of people, not that it doesn't work for them. It's as if you unintentionally have blinders on and can't see the issue.