Except that’s not even how most bus systems work because most of them are majority funded by taxes with fares originally meant to serve as a stopgap but then slowly converted into a profit engine (usually after privitization). Fares are a way to gatekeep a service which your taxes already pay for, which I would argue, is by itself a form of theft.

As an example check out the latest MTA report only 26% of funding comes from fares, and that ones a bit in the higher end from what I’ve seen (NYC public transit, picked as the example a it’s recently been in the news for issues with fare evasion)

All that aside, it’s also worth noting that fare increases are extremely unpopular and it’s not that easy to increase them without potential serious backlash (ie the mass protests in Chile a few years back that were in part set off by the fare hikes.)

Exactly, hence the root of the problem the original meme is getting at…

For healthy working relationships and solid infrastructure you under-promise and over-deliver.

For maximal profit and sustainable business models you over-promise and under-deliver.

But it’s not free, just because you aren’t paying in money doesn’t mean you aren’t paying for it in other ways.

There’s “if someone wants to use my work, they should pay me for it” and there’s “intentionally sabotage the work/service provided in order to extract more profits.”

It depends on the how the contract is written but generally billing a client the full time to develop an existing feature that “could be turned on in 10 min.” is a good example of fraudulent misrepresentation. A business/industry that replies on that (like your example) is a racket.

Yes, I understand that’s how the world of ‘software as a service’ works and yes I am calling it a racket.

It’s wild to me that this is so often called “just business” when, described this way, it’s textbook racketeering.

Also quantity, most “organic” pesticides are significantly less effective and so it requires more applications of more product in order to get the same effect. Eating “organic” likely exposed you to more pesticides than the alternative.

I don’t understand how “both sides are the same” could possibly hold any water after roe was appealed.

Well it’s a good thing the electorate voted largely democratic after Trump so that could get fixed!

So in summary: “both sides bad”?

(Hint: the Democrats long term goals are to lose to the fascists on purpose because that’s how they maximize their funding/support from liberalesque individuals like yourself.)

✓ Open source generative AI

✓ Disney model

✓ Federated

Mock away :D

Why let you choose one when you can be both customer and product!?

You should read up the Halloween documents to get a better understanding of where some of those assumptions (which to be fair have since become something of a self fulfilling prophecy…) originate from.