itsumoiru

I think most people equate "bicycles are dangerous" with "cycling is dangerous", which seems perfectly reasonable to me. What matters is whether you'll get hurt using a bicycle, not the pedantry of whether the bicycle itself is the problem.

This isn't quite dumping. It was more about achieving the scale necessary to make it usable. If there are no drivers, there are no customers. With no customers, who would drive?

"The people" are not one. It's entirely possible to have an oppressive democracy.

> I've seen people say that apartments that are being provided to the homeless for free should have granite countertops or GTFO

This is a common problem in American policy. You're going to have the thing and it's going to be nice, or you're going to be priced out of having it at all.

See minimum floor space regulations, (non-fire related) residential occupancy limits, regulations requiring certain coverage in medical insurance plans, etc. There is a reason that short term insurance plans (STLDIs) that are not subject to as many regulations are much cheaper.

> those paying in to the system today acquiesced to the plan...

No, they didn't acquiesce to anything. They were required to pay whether they wanted to or not.

I read the parent "except" as "the above is true, but..." not as "in all Englishes except American English"

There's a culture of forced retirement there too, so it's not at all surprising. Pay generally increases with age so Japanese companies want people to retire.

Whoever has the most USD cash. (In proportion to their total wealth) most certainly not the "rich".

Not original poster, but I presume that the answer would be "of course not".