As the article points out, there is a safety cost from over-regulation. The impact on air quality from not allowing the new technology quickly enough is very real.

There's a safety cost for getting things sold before they're proven to be safe.

Don't get me wrong, I want air quality to improve. But I don't want shit products or snake oil to be produced which would only make air quality worse.

Instead of blaming regulation: blame businesses that don't want to demonstrate the positive benefits of their product and want to hide the negative affects.

Citation needed

"further aggression limited to those who have not accepted their dominance" doesn't sound anything at all like "turning around" to me.

That's kind of a weird ops story, since SRE 101 for oncall is to not rely on the system you're oncall for to resolve outages in it. This means if you're oncall for communications of some kind, you must have some other independent means of reaching eachother (even if it's a competitor phone network)

That is heavily contingent on the assumption that the dependencies between services are well documented and understood by the people building the systems.

Are you asserting that Rogers employees needed documentation to know that Rogers Wireless runs on Rogers systems?

Rogers is perhaps best described as a confederacy of independent acquisitions. In working with their sales team, I have had to tell them where there facilities are as the sales engineers don't always know about all of the assets that Rogers owns.

There's also the insistence that Rogers employees should use Rogers services. Paying for every Rogers employee to have Bell cell phone would not sit well with their executives.

That the risk assessments of the changes being made to the router configuration were incorrect also contributed to the outage.

When interest rates were particularly low years ago, we saw a large number of companies issuing bonds and then using the money to just do stock buybacks.

The claim isn't that your saying no to fulfilling orders, it's that your saying no to giving them a discount.

  The claim isn't that your saying no to fulfilling orders,
  it's that your saying no to giving them a discount.

Well, no. This is the comment I responded to:

  Unless something has changed over the last couple years,
  restaurants opt in to being available on those apps. 

That very much asserts that the issue is about accepting orders. Doordash et al were initially opt-out.

Yeah, like the restaurant can say “no” to giving a discount, they can say “no” to people wanting their food to get delivered now. It’s just that now it’ll be a bad business decision probably.

Everything is possible. And every choice has its own set of tradeoffs. But no, there’s no time machine to the pre-Doordash world now.

While it's true that preventing cancer means you're likely to die in a few years of heart disease, and preventing heart disease means you're likely to die in a few years of cancer, solving both will add dramatically more than both effects combined to both life and healthspan.

Those really are the big two - as the graphs in the article show, the next biggest things are much smaller and much less likely to get you, which means you live a lot longer and healthier.

> I’ve had this account for over 20 years and never had any issues before.

"Aged" accounts are a thing you can buy on the black market, as well as hacked accounts of users with long chains of legitimate activity. It's not as strong of an anti-fraud signal as you might think.

But 20 years of regular purchases to the same address(es) is easy for them to verify

Yes but so what? All that proves is the account is aged. It doesn't prove it's not been taken over or sold. People move pretty regularly or order things for friends/family, a change of address doesn't mean anything.

So they sold their account to a fraudster who also moved into their old address? Sure, it's possible but now verging on the ridiculous.

They can use common sense for the refund. They are just choosing not to.

the real reason is that adding friction to returns decreases them in general - even legitimate ones.

You don't know they sold their account to a fraudster. You only know that the delivery address changed. That's a very weak signal.

It's San Francisco, parking legally generally requires replacing at least one window.

Compare: "I still get spam, therefore all these anti-spam measures are worthless"

It is absolutely the case that there would be more cheating if we turned off the only partially effective systems. We know this because they are regularly stopping and banning people!