4 ms·
As a forty-something semi-retired electrician, the following apply to me: (c) I own a cell phone, but NEVER leave the house with it (effectively a landline, bu
by ProllyInfamous 1y ago
As a forty-something semi-retired electrician, the following apply to me:
(c) I own a cell phone, but NEVER leave the house with it (effectively a landline, but less expensive). When my city recently began requiring an app for public street parking, I simply stopped paying for parking (it's only a $16 fine, unless you are handicapped == free).
(e) The only thing that causes me to update my phone is when the battery swells up (typically around eight years). Otherwise I don't even update the original OS.
(g) Flat out, I refuse to use your app
(i) Whether by business/marketing or governments, agreed
- gtirloni 1y agoYou're an outlier. I can safely say this doesn't apply to the majority of the population.
- ysavir 1y agoAnd therefor they don't deserve to ride the bus?
- SR2Z 1y agoIf they want to use an ad-hoc bus that runs exactly where people request it in real time, then YES. They should not expect it to work for them.
- ProllyInfamous 1y agoI'd [OC] rather ride a predictable train/subway... but the density / bureaucracy of most American jurisdictions keeps this to a few limited megacities (I have lived in the SFBay & NYC, both; won't go back). Also, can't the bus system have a kiosk/terminal at certain locations? Can't there be a coin/bill acceptor on each block's single parking meter (e.g. Austin, Texas / UT campus meters)? Recently I became a plaintiff (first time, small claims, no big deal); I was surprised to see that only pro se litigants can file paperwork with the court (i.e. lawyers MUST use the e-file system). I attended medical school for one year, right before ACA/eRecords became a requirement... and this always seemed so invasive (e.g. sensitive/VIP psych documentation, PP).
- rcbdev 1y agoSince when are lawmakers and public servants concerned with providing utility for only the majority of citizens? That would, in aggregate, alienate many people from various public services.
- SR2Z 1y agoLawmakers and public servants have ALWAYS been concerned with majorities. I don't know where you get the idea that every single government program ever has to work for everyone - that's clearly not true and many useful programs are supposed to only serve a majority of people. Sewers are a great example of this.
- mbs159 1y ago> I can safely say this doesn't apply to the majority of the population. That's a pretty bold claim, would love to see the data. The only thing I know that applies to the majority of the population is that they breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, and even with that claim I am not 100% confident.
- ProllyInfamous 1y ago...see also: death & taxes (as many smarties have noted [1] [2]). [1] Daniel Defoe [2] Ben Franklin
- nsonha 1y agoyou made the choices, deal with the consequences. I find it amazing that people can be like "screw optimizing public services, saving the environment and make things more accessible for most people, I and some others don't like phones"
- zem 1y agoit's philosophically wrong to say "you need to buy a phone, give some company your personal information, and pay for connectivity on a recurring basis, simply to be able to use a public service"
- ProllyInfamous 1y agoAs I only park downtown once per quarter (metered by a phone app), so far I've not been cited. When it does finally happen: I plan to become plaintiff in my third civil suit against a mid-sized US city (this one: for requiring cell phone / app to park). I know this sounds petty AF, but I have plenty of free time to help correct this philosophical setback [app parking] with precedent. Dare I say to consider this `moral imperative` =D During a civil action approximately two years ago (in a state Chancery Court), I had to sign an affadavid that "I don't use/have email" ... because Judge didn't believe me (a form `REQUIRED` it)! I've filed most my court briefs using a typewriter, which is conversation-inducing (to say the least). As a pro se litigant, the courts are still required to accept paper copies =P
- zem 1y agothat is truly fighting the good fight :) good on you.