> "Forgive me for asking because I don't understand how these situations came to pass in the first place?"

To be honest, I don't think anything would.

Simply stated, I have met too many people (friends, family and coworkers) who tell me well-crafted stories about how they came to be in a car accident, or almost-accident. These stories invariably cast the teller as the victim who could do nothing to prevent the accident (aside from driving more slowly or following at a greater distance). When I later ride with them, I find that they tailgate, speed and roll through stop signs.

Perhaps I was too quick to judge. Maybe you're among the 1% of 'attentive drivers' who actually drive well. I'm just so tired of hearing the excuses of the other 99% that I lumped you in with them.

If you really are that 1%, then I have to say I'm truly am sorry. I hope you are. Because if you aren't, you're probably feeling smug about putting me in my place and will feel justified in driving recklessly in the future.

Your examples are ones of exactly the type of behavior insurance companies are trying to disincentivize. Namely, fail-deadly behavior that puts you in a position where you have to be attentive to avoid a collision when other actors don't do exactly as they should. Your error was putting yourself in that position in the first place.

In my city one of the options (besides SUV, black car, etc) is for persons with disabilities. The app seems to have some options to switch between requesting a driver with a wheelchair-compatible car and the city's own paratransit service. I've never used it myself, so I can't comment on the implementation.

Does Flywheel allow you to rate individual drivers/cars (and prevent being matched to creepy drivers or dirty cars on future rides)? I think that's actually one of the biggest value-adds of Uber/Lyft/Sidecar--direct feedback about drivers which tends to retain good drivers and reject bad ones.

On the other hand, most airports have some sort of public transportation heading in a not-airport direction...

Part of the problem is that there simply isn't as much money to be made in digital as there was in analog. A digital camera doesn't need film, but film (and film processing) accounted for much of Kodak's profits for many years. So it's not just a simple matter of "make digital cameras instead of analog ones".

Also, remember that Kodak was very big into digital imaging, and was considered the leader in the field of high-end digital cameras. That is, until the Nikon D1 came along around 1999. Even then, Kodak sensors were common among the next few generations of DSLRs.

So here's the thing: It actually does cost $8-10 to ship most of the types of things you can buy on Amazon. I don't know what Amazon pays for shipping, but I would be surprised if FedEx/UPS/OnTrac will even look at an Amazon box for less than $3-5 (to say nothing of transporting it).

Amazon Prime is predicated on the idea that you'll make Amazon your default retailer after paying for prime.

Being a customer's default retailer is a powerful position for two reasons. First, many customers don't shop around for the lowest price on each item (they shop for lowest basket price), so your margins don't get squeezed quite as much. Second, you don't need to advertise (as much) to these people, so it reduces your marketing spend.

As loyalty programs go, it's a very clever one.

It does. Three beeps from the little scanner thingy at the ID check means you have Pre. One beep means you don't.

[1] http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-de...

> But these studies are all flawed because they are based on historical data when 4-year degrees were scarcer. In an era when many graduates can't get a job or end up with one that does not require a degree (i.e. barista) it's obvious that their ROI prospects are grim.

I don't think that's at all obvious. We are rapidly approaching the moment [1] when over half of the U.S. population has some sort of college degree, and already 2/3rds have at least "some college" education.

Applying to a front-line retail job with a Bachelor's degree no longer marks you as desperate and over-qualified. You are assuming that an employer will hire a person with only a high school diploma when she can just as easily hire a person with an associate's or bachelor's for the same wage. That will put downward pressure on wages for those without a college degree.

It may very well be the case that sending "everyone" to college does nothing more than depress the wages of those with only a high school education. However, that is not an argument against the positive ROI of college. Spending $100k to avoid $200k in lost wages is still a positive return.

Finding a job with a B.A. or B.Sc. may be difficult, but finding a job with only a high school diploma is even more so.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...

You have to assume totally unrealistic investment gains in the first four years to make up for the $500k less total income.

The incremental lifetime earning from a Bachelor's degree is something like 0.5 to 1.5 million dollars[1]. The cost of attending college could double at least once before the ROI goes negative.

[1] https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/colleg...

So I think that varies from state to state.

[Anecdote warning] When I was in grad school, at least, I was able to directly book appointments at the student health center with PAs, MDs and DOs (perhaps a university-run health center is different, somehow?). I also don't recall ever facing difficulty having a prescription written.

My understanding is that a PAs can't open their own practice, but that several PAs can function more or less independently under the supervision of one MD/DO principal.

Don't we have that already?

Doctor / Physician

Physician Assistant

Nurse Practitioner

Registered Nurse

Nursing Aid / Nurse Assistant

In some cases, yes. It's called "Essential Air Service." But that's not the usual reason for B->C having negative apparent cost.