You're an outlier. I can safely say this doesn't apply to the majority of the population.

Since 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.

Lawmakers 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.

Who does not use the sewage system?

Septic systems are used outside cities when no sewers are available. They're very common in the US.

Try requesting a special connection and extra treatment for your sewage.

And therefor they don't deserve to ride the bus?

If 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.

I'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).

> 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.

...see also: death & taxes (as many smarties have noted [1] [2]).

[1] Daniel Defoe

[2] Ben Franklin

you 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"

it'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"

As 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

that is truly fighting the good fight :) good on you.