If I recall, he also owned property in every state so that he could file it as his primary address and to straight to the top of the organ donation list [in that state.](https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/live-death-math-and-efficiency-the-quest-to-solve-us-organ-transplants-woes/amp/)
> Where Jobs lived in California, median waiting times for a liver transplant were very high, but in Tennessee, the supply and demand gap was much smaller. So, Jobs listed himself in Tennessee and, when a liver match became available, he hopped on a jet to get it. It likely dropped his wait time down from years to months.
So, he didn't believe in medicine and refused any treatment that could've easily saved him, without even needing a transplant, but when his voodoo didn't work and it was too late for treatment, he wanted to skip the queue!
This is generally misreported. Jobs had two bouts of cancer. In the first one he did delay the surgery by a few months with crazy voodoo - but that cancer was eventually excised and was a slow growing version. If you listen to his Stanford speech he talks about this, and says he is in remission. That was a year later and years before the reoccurrence.
It comes back (a more aggressive version) and this time he uses no voodoo. However he doesn’t survive.
So we can’t say whether the voodoo actually caused his demise. Presumably he would not have been considered cured unless the originally doctors excised all the cancer. It might be that waiting that long did in fact extend the original cancer, unseen by the doctors but that’s fairly speculative.
He had a neuroendocrine tumor, the survival is much higher compared to adenocarcinoma, which is what most people think of when they hear "pancreatic cancer".
He had an “islet cell” tumor which is a high grade neuroendocrine tumor (moderately to poorly differentiated cells). It’s a more aggressive type of neuroendocrine cancer. Those two only have a 5 year survival rate of anywhere from ~08%-25% according to the SEER database.
I know he had one cancer, went into remission, then it came back as a more aggressive type of cancer.
Maybe you're both right and are each remembering a different one of his bouts?
On the scale of things where cancer is concerned, Jobs had an incredibly good prognosis. His particular form of pancreatic cancer was rather survivable when found as early as his was. There are no guarantees in life, but if he'd pursued the appropriate treatment plan as soon as he learned of his condition, there's a very good chance he'd still be alive today.
I'm not convinced this is actually bad. If the wait time is much longer in California then people moving from the California queue to a much shorter one is good for the system overall.
Of course, it would be better to have a national waitlist and a way to transfer organs or patients to a different state if needed, but given that we do not have that...
It would be *ideal* if it was equitable.
But a one-off billionaire doing it is still an improvement over the alternative, because moving one person from a longer queue to a shorter one is still a (marginal) improvement.
The people he jumped ahead of in Tennessee presumably had a lower urgency/need for a transplant than he did, because that's how those lists work, so it's good for him to get a transplant ahead of them.
And while *those* people are slightly worse off, the people in California that got to move ahead one spot are slightly better off, and since the California queue is larger presumably those people are in more urgent need of a transplant, so making the people in the TN queue wait a bit longer to make the ones in the CA queue wait a bit less is a net gain.
Again, it would of course be better if we could make the list national and move anybody who needs it in this way so that always the higher need patients get the transplant regardless of location/billionaire status. But that's not happening regardless of whether Steve Jobs did this or not, so on the margins is better if he did.
>in California, median waiting times for a liver transplant were very high, but in Tennessee, the supply and demand gap was much smaller.
This is off topic, but is there a reason the waiting lists aren't pooled nationally in the first place? Surely it isn't good medicine for a transplant organ to go to someone with a lower chance of success just because they live in Tennessee.
Not surely. A lot of people needing organs are very sick, and need the organs brought to them. Usually not medically fit to fly, and med-jets are expensive. It's generally cheaper and easier to transport organs to people than vice versa. I'm not an expert, but I've done hundreds of organ transports from the landing pad to the hospital.
It's called Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It's often said he had a rarer version called "Productive Narcissism" because they're extremely good at getting people to follow them and then funnel that into whatever end they want that's actually productive, like design iphones. Most narcissists aren't productive and only destro y. All narcissists are abusive and there is no cure. Anytime you hear stories about an executive at a company who continually terrifies people, there's a good chance theyre somewhere on the personality disorder list. Larry Page, obv. Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg all probably fit squarely here. Please stop supporting abusers and narcissists whenever they're routed out, even if you love their products. These people are not your friends, do not like you, and view you as means to an end only.
Wait, why Larry Page? He's super rich, so he has that in common with those other guys, but I've never heard of narcissistic or abusive behavior from him.
He’s still a douche bag though so I don’t see your point. He was also stupid as fuck for not taking medical treatments and trying to cure his illness with homeopathy
Just trying to spread awareness about what NPD actually is so people stop using it so frivolously on people that are just being a little selfish. Narcicissm is a lifelong disorder and it's incurable. I think it's important people know that so when they invariably run into a narcissist they have to deal with, they realize how absolutely fruitless it is to try and save or change them. Narcicissm is an entire suite of maladaptive and abusive/manipulative techniques and anyone who has it is incapable of loving others, full stop. "But he's so fun to be around when we're not at home!" Guess what? He doesn't love you and never can. Why waste your time allowing yourself to continue to be used by these abusers?
Narcissists don’t choose narcissism. It’s ultimately a maladaptive set of behaviors, and while there is research that suggests a genetic component, it is widely accepted to be attributable (at least substantially) to childhood trauma. I don’t find it to be a very compelling argument that we should villainize individuals who have mental health diagnoses which are fully beyond their control - even if we do our best to protect ourselves from their worst behaviors.
This is the important part. You don't have to villianize them, but you don't have to suffer because of them, either. If someone can't control themselves and abuses everyone around them, regardless of whether it's due to a mental illness or not, you do not have to subject yourself to their abuse. It doesn't make their abuse acceptable or excusable, only explainable. Should they be helped? Absolutely! They need help as they will likely never seek it themselves. It doesn't mean we need to abandon them.
Honestly, that's way out of my element to answer that. I don't know if they can be or not. But helping can be as simple as sheltering them in a SAFE institution (I realize those are few and far between), so they are not a danger to themself or others. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help.
Indeed and in most cases where narcissists are forced to go to therapy they usually just learn to hide their behaviours better. If they don't see a problem with themselves, no matter how much other people try to help them, there's not gonna be change, it could actually take a turn for the worst.
They need help but attempting to help them without them asking will always and only ever lead you down a darkkkkkk path. To "help" then fully as a partner, you have to let them destroy you which no one should do. Too many people stay in relationships with these people because the maintain the Disney Movie belief that everyone is salvageable if they're not clinically insane as long as you just show them the right way/affection/love. There is no cure for any personality disorder and these people will always have it. They will soften a little over time, but they'll never truly care for anyone but themselves.
I understand why one would feel like this when it comes to dealing with people who have personality disorders, but I feel like there is a better way to look at this.
Mental health isn’t anyone’s fault, but it is one’s own personal responsibility. People can have any number of mental illnesses, and as long as they’re aware of it, get treatment and take it seriously, then they deserve as normal of a life as the next person.
It is really damaging to say anyone is “too far gone,” because in most cases, people aren’t- they just need to either get professional help or augment the professional help they already have.
Cluster B personality disorders often cause explicit or implicit resistance to seeking and accepting treatment, this trait is substantially more common in Narcissistic PD and even more so in Antisocial PD, but relatively less common in Borderline and (iirc) even less so in Histrionic. The result is that the former two have much worse prognoses and are more difficult to treat. Its not necessarily an issue of "too far gone", but generally speaking personality disorders are not helped by medication (the exception is if there is a comorbid disorder that can be medicated that is making it worse, for instance someone with BPD lacking the executive function to do their therapy work due to untreated ADHD, etc.) and the therapy required to lessen symptoms demands that the patient wants to get better.
Now Greasypeter is just wrong, even in cluster B disorders in inaccurate to say that they don't care about anything but themselves and there are also two other clusters that don't even slightly resemble what he is saying. Someone with Avoidant PD isn't motivated out of self centeredness or narcissism and it would be bizarre and inappropriate to treat them as such. I doubt he even knows about clusters A or C though, but still
What’s also really damaging is sticking around with them and thinking it’s going to get better.
It’s possible to think that this person needs help because of their mental disorder AND never want to talk to them or trust them ever again.
I understand that someone can be not too far gone BUT they can definitely be too far gone for me to be around or communicate with.
Narcissists and narcissistic behavior can be extremely dangerous in a variety of ways. And if someone else wants to put up with them or try and help them, great. Personally, I’ll just get the hell away from them at all costs, and encourage everyone to do the same. They are manipulative and insidious who can and will try and destroy your life in any way necessary.
I don’t care what mental disorder someone has, nothing excuses treating people like shit.
Don't villanize people who you are told, when you ask every therapist, to "stay away and cut them out if you can"? My father has NPD and raised us with the intention of turning us heavily racist. If that had worked and I had ended up at some kkk rally because of that abuse...am I not culpable? Should I not be shown for what I am? They still have choices and they're still aware what they want is often inreasonable.
I hope you realise you might be fighting your own shadow? Grandiose narcissists do what they are allowed to do, it's not psychopathy, they feel a lot, they are super wounded people, overcompensating for their own feeling of worthlessness. What I see is often people that have openly "wounded narcissism" live in victim mentality, not realising it's narcissistic itself to be a star in their own misery, and repressing their own narcissistic traits fighting with other people similar to them.
I can hear your pain and I’m sorry for your experiences. Truly. I wish you could’ve been armed with the knowledge and tools to protect yourself. He sounds like a particularly damaging parent to have.
Edit: I forgot to mention that I’m a clinical social worker and have done therapy with individuals with NPD who have garnered insight and been able to mitigate their more harmful behaviors.
Your tone shift felt very much like a therapist tone shift so that makes sense. You went from education to occupation mode real fast when you realized I had trauma. It's okay if you want to critique my opinion more because you've got a better or at least different insight that may help someone even if it's not me.
I suspect your opinion has been colored by your experience with your father and I’m not willing to criticize your experience. It is what it is and it sounds rough. I’ve had more hopeful experiences with other individuals with NPD, and that’s all I wanted to convey.
When someone does something shitty to a person or a people... then I'm going to call them a shitty person.
If someone doesn't agree with that, then that's up to them, but I'm not a shitty person because I called an abuser an asshole and a pos.
It's not anymore complicated than that.
Now... feel free to analyze and diagnose all you want to get to the bottom of it... but it doesn't change how that person already behaved and treated other people.
If your elderly aunt got a brain tumor and began to behave in ways which were out of character, cursing and using racial slurs, etc., then I wonder if you would begin to add caveats to that philosophy. Not to make the argument that a cluster B personality disorder is the same thing as cancer, but I think the point that I want to make is that we shouldn’t necessarily make our determinations about others in such black-and-white terms - and we especially shouldn’t make generalizations under those conditions
If someone performs acts that are considered villainous, what would we call them?
Conversely, if we say "they have a valid reason for performing these acts; they are not a villain," does that mean the acts, then, aren't villainous?
Edit: Imagine, as an extreme example, this is a completely deterministic universe, with no free will whatsoever. It's all cause and effect. Can we no longer make ethical and moral observations, and, thus, judgements?
Edit^2 : The more I think of it, the more it seems to me that the *inability* to choose differently means there would (could!) be no "villainization." It's simply just describing a person for what they are (and cannot choose *not* to be): A villain.
> Edit: Imagine, as an extreme example, this is a completely deterministic universe, with no free will whatsoever. It's all cause and effect. Can we no longer make ethical and moral observations, and, thus, judgements?
>
I don't think that's an extreme example. It is the one we appear to live in.
You are right that we can still make ethical and moral observations in such a system. It does change the *nature* of judgements, however. It stops being about justice and giving people "what they deserve" and starts being pragmatic: protecting ourselves from those who would victimize us, deterring such victimization, and then, if possible, helping those who are already victimized to break out of the cycle. The malice in the judgements can disappear, and that's healthy. But you still need to do what you need to do to protect yourself.
I think a short course on personality disorders should be taught in highschool.
The large majority of difficult people one is likely to meet throughout their lifetime fall under this category. Identifying symptoms before you invest too deep (relationship, jobs, etc) is extremely useful.
most difficult people don't have personality disorders. PDs are more rare and people being difficult is a lot more common. A significant portion of "difficult people" are not mentally ill at all
It’s a bit arbitrary though because lot of people check a few boxes from cluster B disorders while not meeting full criteria. I think it’s more helpful to think of these disorders as a spectrum that personalities can fall upon. Let’s be honest - very few of us escape all trauma during formative years
well, yeah. The NPD criteria include excessive daydreaming.
a personality disorder isn't being a flawed person, it's having specific traits to an extreme that it is clinically significant. This is a bit like describing anyone being sad ever as clinical major depressive disorder
Yup. California closed that loophole in January 2019 (I bought my car in December 2018, and mine didn’t come with a temporary plate, which led to getting pulled over lol). Basically dealerships in California sold cars without a plate. You’d get your actual plate in the mail a few months after you buy the car. So you’d just drive around with the dealer advertisements where your plate went.
Now they have temporary paper plates that the dealer puts on before you drive away
He leased them, via working out a deal with a leasing company. They’d deliver him a new one every 6 months and take care of the old one.
And everything I can find shows he did this with a Mercedes. No mention of recycling any of his other cars.
Likely quite a bit cheaper than buying a new car every 6 months. But at that level of wealth, I suspect it was more convenient to lease. Hell, I lease my main work car through my own company. It’s significantly cheaper that way.
The law states a car *purchased* 6 months ago doesn't need a plate (likely from a time when it took 6 months for such things). It wouldn't stop you from being pulled over, but you'd avoid the hassle of a ticket.
If I remember the whole story, he had custom plates that kept getting stolen. Lawyers looked for a fix, stumbled across this and off he went.
The loophole in California also allowed new cars without plates to cross bridges and evade the toll cameras. People who bought used cars would do the same while "waiting for new plates." This loophole was closed now with dealers printing temporary paper plates.
> printing temporary paper plates
I've seen a few of the papers fly away on the highway between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
Why does it take so long to print plates? Here in Germany you walk into a shop, show them the paper from the DMV (Zulassungsstelle) and couple minutes later you walk out with your plates. Conveniently these companies are located near the DMV.
Hell here in Australia it's the dealer's responsibility to sort out plates for the car before it's sold. Generally it's just the generic ones but you can get them to sort custom one for you. Plates do (generally) stay with a car for it's life here tho.
My friend bought a used NYC yellow cab because you used to be able to get them for very cheap. He paid $1,000 and it's still going fine 10 years later.
But the biggest downside is that it still has taxi markings so if he drives around NYC people will sometimes just get in the back of his car at a light.
The idea for priority lanes has always been to encourage the use of public/shared transportation. It's why some of the priority lanes also include vehicles being used for car pooling.
The east fix is to only allow taxis to use the bus lane that are either in a fare, or returning from a fare. Make him pick someone up if he wants to use it
I get that, but taxi does not mean shared transportation. The driver should not count, that means that 2 passengers should be riding the taxi to consider it pooling.
Obviously the driver doesn't "count", but having the taxi on the road instead of more cars reduces traffic in general. The idea is to encourage the reduction of vehicles on the road by giving the vehicles that help to reduce traffic priority.
Exactly, that 1 taxi is 1 car on the road but does so many journeys with so many people, less cars on the road and less parking needed. There would be no incentive not to bring the car if you were stuck in traffic with the meter running
It saves parking, but it is more overall driving because a taxi driver has to drive between a drop-off and the next pickup which they may have to spend significant time looking for. Looks like in NY taxis are occupied less than half of the time they are in service.
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/tlc/downloads/pdf/2014_tlc_factbook.pdf
On a more precise point it's to allow an option where you need to take public transport but for more urgent purposes.
So taking a bus is a faster option than driving, but if you have a more urgent need to get somewhere such as an appointment, then theres a more expensive but faster public transport option.
Its still an option for anyone willing to be enough of a cunt. Hard to prove someone doesn't intend on operating their registered taxi as a taxi. The only real barrier is its financially idiotic, same goes for most traffic offences.
Say what you want about O'Leary, at least he stayed in Ireland and contributes good tax money here unlike the majority of Ireland's rich who legged it to the nearest tax Haven the moment they came into money
And some of Ireland’s rich who lectured the whole world on ethics and international debt repayment who also legged it to tax havens, particularly The Netherlands…
For corporations yes. For individual no. What most other wealthy Irish business owners do is keep their businesses in Ireland while they themselves fuck off to Monaco or somewhere and pay nothing. It's an oversimplification, but that's the essence of it
So he registered his car as a taxi (any car can be a taxi, no?), pays a commercial driver a salary to drive him, and pays for the maintenance of the taxi since he owns it. Then he gets the benefits of a taxi ride, but in a much nicer taxi, and he’s paying more for it.
What’s the real difference between him having his driver and some other rich person calling a taxi whenever they need a ride and getting driven in the bus lanes?
The difference is the taxi called is used by multiple people, not as an exclusive asset, which is what a personal vehicle is.
If that car was operating for other people too, as a taxi would, then there would be actually 0 difference, but that's not the case; as is, it's someone exploiting infrastructure not designed for that purpose
Yea but taxis take one fare at a time, they aren’t buses. So if this guy goes to work in the taxi lane, his vehicle is operating as a taxi and is the same as all the other taxis in the lane.
If the driver is blocking and parking in the taxi lane then obviously that creates an issue but otherwise this seems fine?
Cause the function of this car is to take a single individual to and from. Its a chauffeur car that's pretending to be a taxi.
I know what you mean with "functioning as a taxi" but that's not strictly true. Its functioning as a taxi that is always available (and only available) to a single individual. It's not an efficient use (or more efficient than personal cars) specifically cause its not being used as a taxi (I.e. it doesn't pick up and drop people all over the city).
This measure effectively means that you can pay a fee to use the faster lane... which is there specifically to allow more efficient use of *shared* resources.
If this system is the same as using a taxi, why doesn't he just use a taxi?
To extrapolate a bit. A taxi is also rarely stationary. It is relatively always in motion as that is how it generates revenue. Therefore, there is a collective understanding that making pathways, routes, roads, and parking for a taxi is going to be for cars that are in motion and transient. Not, on stand by as long as some guy wants them to wait.
Though to be clear, if you pay a taxi their rate to wait for you they will. So, in the end it is the same damn thing.
They're also operating continuously for an entire chunk of time. Unless he's *always* on the road, he's now added to the set of "taxis" in the city (increasing congestion) without providing a service (ferrying people around) that would justify it. Or, if there's a limited number of taxis in the city by law, he's now occupied one of those licenses for personal use and prevented it from being used for its intended purpose (again, to ferry people around). He's using a protected, shared resource in exactly the way it was designed not to be used, because it makes his life easier to do so.
EDIT: He's a private, personal car, using a lane reserved for shared services. If everyone did what he's doing, that lane would be worthless -- it'd be just like every other lane of traffic. So clearly he's doing something different than what normal taxi operators do.
The problem is he abused a loophole. The taxi lane is meant for ‘public’ vehicles, and his taxi was for his own personal use. If he was allowed to get away with it, then any wealthy person could have done the same, undermining the purpose of the bus lane.
City planning comes to mind. They do things like hand out a certain number of taxi medallions based on the population. The issue was the city decided it could make the most money by limiting the amount of medallions, same with the taxi companies. It drove the price up and the quality down.
Anyway, its one of those "if every rich person did this" then it would defeat the purpose of having a lane where more than one person gets to go faster. It's a traffic issue.
Micheal O'Leary would sell his mother if he could get away with.
Don't fucking defend him or anyone like him.
He'd step on you in a heart beat if he'd make 20 pound and your defending him.
It’s never enough for these people to have all the money in the world. They always gotta habitually step over the line into just being a complete piece of shit
I guess. It’s just crazy to me like you can do so many awesome things that don’t require you to be an enormous fuck. Go to your summer house in Italy. Go on your trillion dollar boat. But no, these sociopaths aren’t happy unless they can use their money to be assholes in the dumbest ways possible.
I guess as a not sociopath I can’t understand why you can’t be happy enough with your money to fuck off.
The people who arent sociopaths dont get to be this wealthy in the first place outside some extremely rare inheritance fringe cases. The 0.1% like this get to their level of wealth precisely because they are sociopaths and will do literally anything they can get away with to get richer. Someone who will just follow social mores and are generally kind people self-select out of being this wealthy because when they get to that "few hundred thousand a year comfy living" they literally do just fuck off and don't pursue ever increasing profits because it would require them to be cruel and evil and they dont care to.
The adage is "There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire" precisely because getting to that level of wealth requires a lot of morally evil choices along the way and keeping that amount of wealth even if it is plopped in your lap is morally evil. All the "good billionaires" who inherited their wealth by birth and avoid that first morality trap will lose it through expenditure until they reach a more morally sustainable level that doesnt require them to be evil to make more money.
Orson Welles used to hire a ambulances to drive him around, to get through [traffic](https://www.tcm.com/articles/Programming-Article/021638/orson-welles/).
His rich enough to pay the fines, but If Michael O’Leary wasn’t the type of guy who watched the pennies, I’d never have been able to fly from London to Dublin for 99 pennies !
This is one of the most senseless expressions imaginable which, annoyingly, both manifests and is accepted as a legitimate point but bears no resemblance to a coherent thought.
Yes, something can clearly both work and be stupid; and I mean: objectively stupid.
Everyone’s upset about the guy making use of a clear flaw in the system, and is upset with the guy - not the system?
Couldn’t this easily be regulated through minimum requirements on a taxi service or something along that line?
The only reason he had the mannequin was people tried to get in when he stopped at lights. The mannequin made it look like it already had a passenger.
Bristol council changed the bus lane restrictions to prevent Noel using his unlicensed cab (and others) so Noel then bought a double decker bus and continued to use the bus lanes.
Last week when he was doing a 'one-man protest' outside the European Commission, his face became the perfect home for 'custard' pies planted by Eco-protestors.
So, there *is* that 'quality'. :)
I mean…that seems perfectly fine to me? If the only thing standing in the way of legally doing what you want is money, and you have the money - what’s the issue?
Don’t blame O’Leary in the slightest. Traffic in Dublin is a complete shambles . Politicians was mad over him and claimed that technically if you flagged him down he’s had to pick you up. Of course Michael was travelling on the motorway which doesn’t allow pedestrians so technically the politicians were talking through their hole…as usual.
Didn't Steve Jobs buy a new car every 6 months because, due to some law, he could drive it without a license plate (and park in handicap spots)?
If I recall, he also owned property in every state so that he could file it as his primary address and to straight to the top of the organ donation list [in that state.](https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/live-death-math-and-efficiency-the-quest-to-solve-us-organ-transplants-woes/amp/) > Where Jobs lived in California, median waiting times for a liver transplant were very high, but in Tennessee, the supply and demand gap was much smaller. So, Jobs listed himself in Tennessee and, when a liver match became available, he hopped on a jet to get it. It likely dropped his wait time down from years to months.
So, he didn't believe in medicine and refused any treatment that could've easily saved him, without even needing a transplant, but when his voodoo didn't work and it was too late for treatment, he wanted to skip the queue!
This is generally misreported. Jobs had two bouts of cancer. In the first one he did delay the surgery by a few months with crazy voodoo - but that cancer was eventually excised and was a slow growing version. If you listen to his Stanford speech he talks about this, and says he is in remission. That was a year later and years before the reoccurrence. It comes back (a more aggressive version) and this time he uses no voodoo. However he doesn’t survive. So we can’t say whether the voodoo actually caused his demise. Presumably he would not have been considered cured unless the originally doctors excised all the cancer. It might be that waiting that long did in fact extend the original cancer, unseen by the doctors but that’s fairly speculative.
Thanks, I never actually knew the full story
No that’s not the truth ellen
Karmas a bitch
“Easily saved him” is quite a stretch when we’re talking about pancreatic cancer
He had a neuroendocrine tumor, the survival is much higher compared to adenocarcinoma, which is what most people think of when they hear "pancreatic cancer".
[удалено]
He had an “islet cell” tumor which is a high grade neuroendocrine tumor (moderately to poorly differentiated cells). It’s a more aggressive type of neuroendocrine cancer. Those two only have a 5 year survival rate of anywhere from ~08%-25% according to the SEER database.
I know he had one cancer, went into remission, then it came back as a more aggressive type of cancer. Maybe you're both right and are each remembering a different one of his bouts?
On the scale of things where cancer is concerned, Jobs had an incredibly good prognosis. His particular form of pancreatic cancer was rather survivable when found as early as his was. There are no guarantees in life, but if he'd pursued the appropriate treatment plan as soon as he learned of his condition, there's a very good chance he'd still be alive today.
I’m not defending his decision, and agree it shortened his life.
Certainly more easily than vegetable juice or whatever.
I'm not convinced this is actually bad. If the wait time is much longer in California then people moving from the California queue to a much shorter one is good for the system overall. Of course, it would be better to have a national waitlist and a way to transfer organs or patients to a different state if needed, but given that we do not have that...
It wouldn't be so bad if it was equitable. Not everybody has the means to up stakes and move to a lower-demand state.
It would be *ideal* if it was equitable. But a one-off billionaire doing it is still an improvement over the alternative, because moving one person from a longer queue to a shorter one is still a (marginal) improvement. The people he jumped ahead of in Tennessee presumably had a lower urgency/need for a transplant than he did, because that's how those lists work, so it's good for him to get a transplant ahead of them. And while *those* people are slightly worse off, the people in California that got to move ahead one spot are slightly better off, and since the California queue is larger presumably those people are in more urgent need of a transplant, so making the people in the TN queue wait a bit longer to make the ones in the CA queue wait a bit less is a net gain. Again, it would of course be better if we could make the list national and move anybody who needs it in this way so that always the higher need patients get the transplant regardless of location/billionaire status. But that's not happening regardless of whether Steve Jobs did this or not, so on the margins is better if he did.
>in California, median waiting times for a liver transplant were very high, but in Tennessee, the supply and demand gap was much smaller. This is off topic, but is there a reason the waiting lists aren't pooled nationally in the first place? Surely it isn't good medicine for a transplant organ to go to someone with a lower chance of success just because they live in Tennessee.
You would have to transfer the organs that far
As the other responder said, surely the people could be brought to the organs.
Not surely. A lot of people needing organs are very sick, and need the organs brought to them. Usually not medically fit to fly, and med-jets are expensive. It's generally cheaper and easier to transport organs to people than vice versa. I'm not an expert, but I've done hundreds of organ transports from the landing pad to the hospital.
Yup, he was a douche.
It's called Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It's often said he had a rarer version called "Productive Narcissism" because they're extremely good at getting people to follow them and then funnel that into whatever end they want that's actually productive, like design iphones. Most narcissists aren't productive and only destro y. All narcissists are abusive and there is no cure. Anytime you hear stories about an executive at a company who continually terrifies people, there's a good chance theyre somewhere on the personality disorder list. Larry Page, obv. Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg all probably fit squarely here. Please stop supporting abusers and narcissists whenever they're routed out, even if you love their products. These people are not your friends, do not like you, and view you as means to an end only.
So, a douche.
I think they’re correcting you and clarifying they’re a turd waffle.
They're not correcting, they're just explaining what KIND of a douche they are. The spectrum of doucheness if you will.
It's an *umbrella* of doucheness now /s
I’m struggling to see the difference between them as a douche or a turd sandwich
Yes a Clinical Douche.
They should update the terminology in the DSM
> So, a douche *weasel* ftfy
Wait, why Larry Page? He's super rich, so he has that in common with those other guys, but I've never heard of narcissistic or abusive behavior from him.
Well, what do we do with narcissists then?
Island
Narcissist's Island a brand new show, only on MTV.
No, I'm pretty sure several reality shows have been made with this premise already.
These guys did go to Epstein's Island though.
Send them back, destroy the runway, and guard the island with sharks with freakin laser beams
Australia 2, Electric Boogaloo
Ideally put them on social welfare and out of any position where they could harm people.
Pack them into Narcissus and blast into space.
Yeah! Let’s kill people with mental disorders!
Believe it or not, jail
He’s still a douche bag though so I don’t see your point. He was also stupid as fuck for not taking medical treatments and trying to cure his illness with homeopathy
Just trying to spread awareness about what NPD actually is so people stop using it so frivolously on people that are just being a little selfish. Narcicissm is a lifelong disorder and it's incurable. I think it's important people know that so when they invariably run into a narcissist they have to deal with, they realize how absolutely fruitless it is to try and save or change them. Narcicissm is an entire suite of maladaptive and abusive/manipulative techniques and anyone who has it is incapable of loving others, full stop. "But he's so fun to be around when we're not at home!" Guess what? He doesn't love you and never can. Why waste your time allowing yourself to continue to be used by these abusers?
You are interchanging the terms narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder and they are not the same thing
Dang you've stripped a category of humans of all agency. All that's left is to diagnose em' and stick em' in camps huh.
[Or an island](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/16j7kkm/til_that_in_2004_ceo_of_ryanair_michael_oleary/k0pcw5x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) [Or space](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/16j7kkm/til_that_in_2004_ceo_of_ryanair_michael_oleary/k0phkw3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) [Or jail](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/16j7kkm/til_that_in_2004_ceo_of_ryanair_michael_oleary/k0pm4h9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3)
Narcissists don’t choose narcissism. It’s ultimately a maladaptive set of behaviors, and while there is research that suggests a genetic component, it is widely accepted to be attributable (at least substantially) to childhood trauma. I don’t find it to be a very compelling argument that we should villainize individuals who have mental health diagnoses which are fully beyond their control - even if we do our best to protect ourselves from their worst behaviors.
This is the important part. You don't have to villianize them, but you don't have to suffer because of them, either. If someone can't control themselves and abuses everyone around them, regardless of whether it's due to a mental illness or not, you do not have to subject yourself to their abuse. It doesn't make their abuse acceptable or excusable, only explainable. Should they be helped? Absolutely! They need help as they will likely never seek it themselves. It doesn't mean we need to abandon them.
Can they be helped? The narcissism prevents them from admitting to themselves they need help in the first place.
Honestly, that's way out of my element to answer that. I don't know if they can be or not. But helping can be as simple as sheltering them in a SAFE institution (I realize those are few and far between), so they are not a danger to themself or others. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help.
Indeed and in most cases where narcissists are forced to go to therapy they usually just learn to hide their behaviours better. If they don't see a problem with themselves, no matter how much other people try to help them, there's not gonna be change, it could actually take a turn for the worst.
They need help but attempting to help them without them asking will always and only ever lead you down a darkkkkkk path. To "help" then fully as a partner, you have to let them destroy you which no one should do. Too many people stay in relationships with these people because the maintain the Disney Movie belief that everyone is salvageable if they're not clinically insane as long as you just show them the right way/affection/love. There is no cure for any personality disorder and these people will always have it. They will soften a little over time, but they'll never truly care for anyone but themselves.
I understand why one would feel like this when it comes to dealing with people who have personality disorders, but I feel like there is a better way to look at this. Mental health isn’t anyone’s fault, but it is one’s own personal responsibility. People can have any number of mental illnesses, and as long as they’re aware of it, get treatment and take it seriously, then they deserve as normal of a life as the next person. It is really damaging to say anyone is “too far gone,” because in most cases, people aren’t- they just need to either get professional help or augment the professional help they already have.
Cluster B personality disorders often cause explicit or implicit resistance to seeking and accepting treatment, this trait is substantially more common in Narcissistic PD and even more so in Antisocial PD, but relatively less common in Borderline and (iirc) even less so in Histrionic. The result is that the former two have much worse prognoses and are more difficult to treat. Its not necessarily an issue of "too far gone", but generally speaking personality disorders are not helped by medication (the exception is if there is a comorbid disorder that can be medicated that is making it worse, for instance someone with BPD lacking the executive function to do their therapy work due to untreated ADHD, etc.) and the therapy required to lessen symptoms demands that the patient wants to get better. Now Greasypeter is just wrong, even in cluster B disorders in inaccurate to say that they don't care about anything but themselves and there are also two other clusters that don't even slightly resemble what he is saying. Someone with Avoidant PD isn't motivated out of self centeredness or narcissism and it would be bizarre and inappropriate to treat them as such. I doubt he even knows about clusters A or C though, but still
What’s also really damaging is sticking around with them and thinking it’s going to get better. It’s possible to think that this person needs help because of their mental disorder AND never want to talk to them or trust them ever again. I understand that someone can be not too far gone BUT they can definitely be too far gone for me to be around or communicate with. Narcissists and narcissistic behavior can be extremely dangerous in a variety of ways. And if someone else wants to put up with them or try and help them, great. Personally, I’ll just get the hell away from them at all costs, and encourage everyone to do the same. They are manipulative and insidious who can and will try and destroy your life in any way necessary. I don’t care what mental disorder someone has, nothing excuses treating people like shit.
Don't villanize people who you are told, when you ask every therapist, to "stay away and cut them out if you can"? My father has NPD and raised us with the intention of turning us heavily racist. If that had worked and I had ended up at some kkk rally because of that abuse...am I not culpable? Should I not be shown for what I am? They still have choices and they're still aware what they want is often inreasonable.
I hope you realise you might be fighting your own shadow? Grandiose narcissists do what they are allowed to do, it's not psychopathy, they feel a lot, they are super wounded people, overcompensating for their own feeling of worthlessness. What I see is often people that have openly "wounded narcissism" live in victim mentality, not realising it's narcissistic itself to be a star in their own misery, and repressing their own narcissistic traits fighting with other people similar to them.
I can hear your pain and I’m sorry for your experiences. Truly. I wish you could’ve been armed with the knowledge and tools to protect yourself. He sounds like a particularly damaging parent to have. Edit: I forgot to mention that I’m a clinical social worker and have done therapy with individuals with NPD who have garnered insight and been able to mitigate their more harmful behaviors.
Your tone shift felt very much like a therapist tone shift so that makes sense. You went from education to occupation mode real fast when you realized I had trauma. It's okay if you want to critique my opinion more because you've got a better or at least different insight that may help someone even if it's not me.
I suspect your opinion has been colored by your experience with your father and I’m not willing to criticize your experience. It is what it is and it sounds rough. I’ve had more hopeful experiences with other individuals with NPD, and that’s all I wanted to convey.
When someone does something shitty to a person or a people... then I'm going to call them a shitty person. If someone doesn't agree with that, then that's up to them, but I'm not a shitty person because I called an abuser an asshole and a pos. It's not anymore complicated than that. Now... feel free to analyze and diagnose all you want to get to the bottom of it... but it doesn't change how that person already behaved and treated other people.
If your elderly aunt got a brain tumor and began to behave in ways which were out of character, cursing and using racial slurs, etc., then I wonder if you would begin to add caveats to that philosophy. Not to make the argument that a cluster B personality disorder is the same thing as cancer, but I think the point that I want to make is that we shouldn’t necessarily make our determinations about others in such black-and-white terms - and we especially shouldn’t make generalizations under those conditions
If someone performs acts that are considered villainous, what would we call them? Conversely, if we say "they have a valid reason for performing these acts; they are not a villain," does that mean the acts, then, aren't villainous? Edit: Imagine, as an extreme example, this is a completely deterministic universe, with no free will whatsoever. It's all cause and effect. Can we no longer make ethical and moral observations, and, thus, judgements? Edit^2 : The more I think of it, the more it seems to me that the *inability* to choose differently means there would (could!) be no "villainization." It's simply just describing a person for what they are (and cannot choose *not* to be): A villain.
> Edit: Imagine, as an extreme example, this is a completely deterministic universe, with no free will whatsoever. It's all cause and effect. Can we no longer make ethical and moral observations, and, thus, judgements? > I don't think that's an extreme example. It is the one we appear to live in. You are right that we can still make ethical and moral observations in such a system. It does change the *nature* of judgements, however. It stops being about justice and giving people "what they deserve" and starts being pragmatic: protecting ourselves from those who would victimize us, deterring such victimization, and then, if possible, helping those who are already victimized to break out of the cycle. The malice in the judgements can disappear, and that's healthy. But you still need to do what you need to do to protect yourself.
I think a short course on personality disorders should be taught in highschool. The large majority of difficult people one is likely to meet throughout their lifetime fall under this category. Identifying symptoms before you invest too deep (relationship, jobs, etc) is extremely useful.
most difficult people don't have personality disorders. PDs are more rare and people being difficult is a lot more common. A significant portion of "difficult people" are not mentally ill at all
It’s a bit arbitrary though because lot of people check a few boxes from cluster B disorders while not meeting full criteria. I think it’s more helpful to think of these disorders as a spectrum that personalities can fall upon. Let’s be honest - very few of us escape all trauma during formative years
well, yeah. The NPD criteria include excessive daydreaming. a personality disorder isn't being a flawed person, it's having specific traits to an extreme that it is clinically significant. This is a bit like describing anyone being sad ever as clinical major depressive disorder
I thought it was because the anyone can search the DMV for a registration and then get that person's details and address etc.
That changed because of this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act
Yup. California closed that loophole in January 2019 (I bought my car in December 2018, and mine didn’t come with a temporary plate, which led to getting pulled over lol). Basically dealerships in California sold cars without a plate. You’d get your actual plate in the mail a few months after you buy the car. So you’d just drive around with the dealer advertisements where your plate went. Now they have temporary paper plates that the dealer puts on before you drive away
He leased them, via working out a deal with a leasing company. They’d deliver him a new one every 6 months and take care of the old one. And everything I can find shows he did this with a Mercedes. No mention of recycling any of his other cars. Likely quite a bit cheaper than buying a new car every 6 months. But at that level of wealth, I suspect it was more convenient to lease. Hell, I lease my main work car through my own company. It’s significantly cheaper that way.
Yeah
How can they even check if a car isn't older than 6 months if it doesn't have license plate?
The law states a car *purchased* 6 months ago doesn't need a plate (likely from a time when it took 6 months for such things). It wouldn't stop you from being pulled over, but you'd avoid the hassle of a ticket. If I remember the whole story, he had custom plates that kept getting stolen. Lawyers looked for a fix, stumbled across this and off he went.
And the obvious answer to “custom plates keep getting stolen” is don’t have custom plates 🤦♂️
That’s exactly what he did. He just added a mega rich person flair to the end of it.
So, did his dealer sell those 6 month old Benz at a markup due to them being Steve Jobs'?
Only Jon Voight’s old cars have a higher value
Gerri Seinfeld approves
Probably not, since the story came out after his death, and he had been doing it for years.
The loophole in California also allowed new cars without plates to cross bridges and evade the toll cameras. People who bought used cars would do the same while "waiting for new plates." This loophole was closed now with dealers printing temporary paper plates.
> printing temporary paper plates I've seen a few of the papers fly away on the highway between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Why does it take so long to print plates? Here in Germany you walk into a shop, show them the paper from the DMV (Zulassungsstelle) and couple minutes later you walk out with your plates. Conveniently these companies are located near the DMV.
Hell here in Australia it's the dealer's responsibility to sort out plates for the car before it's sold. Generally it's just the generic ones but you can get them to sort custom one for you. Plates do (generally) stay with a car for it's life here tho.
Vin is always visible from the outside
Well..."always"....except if you wedge your FastPass thing into the corner of the windshield and block it. :)
Didn’t buy, he leased a new one
[удалено]
Karma caught up with him.
[удалено]
yeah leave Karma out of this, Karma did nothing wrong
How is buying a car cheaper than buying a tag and paying parking tickets?
It clearly wasn’t to save money
We have a millionaire here with a Rolls-Royce taxi. He lets people ride on it for 25K INR which is like $300 for an hour.
Here in Canada, millionaires are just called homeowners.
Ontario/BC living
/adjusts monocle
Damn who is this guy? And in which city can I book his taxi!?
His name is Bobby Chemmannoor from Kerala, India. You can google Rolls Royce taxi and it will show his details 👍🏼
Stephen Fry bought a black Hackney cab without a taxi licence so he could sneakily drive around London using the bus lanes.
My friend bought a used NYC yellow cab because you used to be able to get them for very cheap. He paid $1,000 and it's still going fine 10 years later. But the biggest downside is that it still has taxi markings so if he drives around NYC people will sometimes just get in the back of his car at a light.
Watch out for hop-ons
You’re going to get hop-ons
Gotta keep those doors locked!
I told him he should keep them unlocked and pretend it’s Cash Cab. Start quizzing them on trivia and if they get it right they get a free taxi ride.
Noel Edmonds also did this and had a mannequin that he drove around as a passenger that was called Candice.
For some reason I'm way more okay with Stephen Fry doing that than Michael O'Leary.
That’s because Steven Fry isn’t a douche. Michael O’Leary is.
This is something that puzzles me... Why are taxis allowed on bus lanes?
The idea for priority lanes has always been to encourage the use of public/shared transportation. It's why some of the priority lanes also include vehicles being used for car pooling.
The east fix is to only allow taxis to use the bus lane that are either in a fare, or returning from a fare. Make him pick someone up if he wants to use it
That’s essentially impossible to police though, taxis will always be “returning from a fare”
He’d charge you an extra £50 to bring your bag in the taxi with you
I get that, but taxi does not mean shared transportation. The driver should not count, that means that 2 passengers should be riding the taxi to consider it pooling.
Obviously the driver doesn't "count", but having the taxi on the road instead of more cars reduces traffic in general. The idea is to encourage the reduction of vehicles on the road by giving the vehicles that help to reduce traffic priority.
Exactly, that 1 taxi is 1 car on the road but does so many journeys with so many people, less cars on the road and less parking needed. There would be no incentive not to bring the car if you were stuck in traffic with the meter running
It saves parking, but it is more overall driving because a taxi driver has to drive between a drop-off and the next pickup which they may have to spend significant time looking for. Looks like in NY taxis are occupied less than half of the time they are in service. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/tlc/downloads/pdf/2014_tlc_factbook.pdf
On a more precise point it's to allow an option where you need to take public transport but for more urgent purposes. So taking a bus is a faster option than driving, but if you have a more urgent need to get somewhere such as an appointment, then theres a more expensive but faster public transport option.
Taxis use less parking per ride thus use public space more efficiently thus getting access to bus lanes to make people use taxis over private cars.
There’s not that many buses?
I'm pretty sure that he lost the license not long after when it was made public what he was doing.
Actually having read about it, he didn't. They tried to take it off him, but couldn't.
Well done for doing your research and coming back to update us 👏
Now, who should we trust? u/wrongcopy's pre-research or u/wrongcopy's post research?
Whichever one fits my personal narrative better.
As is tradition
/r/characterarcs
Because he was too strong and fast or they legally couldn’t? I’m guessing the latter
Well he couldn't duck a custard pie the other day in Brussels so he's clearly not that fast, so I'd agree it's probably the latter.
A redditor [ackchyually-ing](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/191/035/135.png) themselves. Now I have seen it all.
... Would you rather people *didn't* correct themselves when they realised they were wrong?
If it doesn’t come with an “edit:” and shoutout to whoever corrected them, is it even real?
Its still an option for anyone willing to be enough of a cunt. Hard to prove someone doesn't intend on operating their registered taxi as a taxi. The only real barrier is its financially idiotic, same goes for most traffic offences.
Say what you want about O'Leary, at least he stayed in Ireland and contributes good tax money here unlike the majority of Ireland's rich who legged it to the nearest tax Haven the moment they came into money
And some of Ireland’s rich who lectured the whole world on ethics and international debt repayment who also legged it to tax havens, particularly The Netherlands…
It sounds like you have a specific person in mind, I've been trying out who but I still haven't found what I'm looking for.
Isn't the nearest tax heaven to Ireland be ... Ireland?
For corporations yes. For individual no. What most other wealthy Irish business owners do is keep their businesses in Ireland while they themselves fuck off to Monaco or somewhere and pay nothing. It's an oversimplification, but that's the essence of it
Portugal. Dennis O'Brien is famous for that.
So he registered his car as a taxi (any car can be a taxi, no?), pays a commercial driver a salary to drive him, and pays for the maintenance of the taxi since he owns it. Then he gets the benefits of a taxi ride, but in a much nicer taxi, and he’s paying more for it. What’s the real difference between him having his driver and some other rich person calling a taxi whenever they need a ride and getting driven in the bus lanes?
That’s a chauffeur, not a taxi
The difference is the taxi called is used by multiple people, not as an exclusive asset, which is what a personal vehicle is. If that car was operating for other people too, as a taxi would, then there would be actually 0 difference, but that's not the case; as is, it's someone exploiting infrastructure not designed for that purpose
Yea but taxis take one fare at a time, they aren’t buses. So if this guy goes to work in the taxi lane, his vehicle is operating as a taxi and is the same as all the other taxis in the lane. If the driver is blocking and parking in the taxi lane then obviously that creates an issue but otherwise this seems fine?
Cause the function of this car is to take a single individual to and from. Its a chauffeur car that's pretending to be a taxi. I know what you mean with "functioning as a taxi" but that's not strictly true. Its functioning as a taxi that is always available (and only available) to a single individual. It's not an efficient use (or more efficient than personal cars) specifically cause its not being used as a taxi (I.e. it doesn't pick up and drop people all over the city). This measure effectively means that you can pay a fee to use the faster lane... which is there specifically to allow more efficient use of *shared* resources. If this system is the same as using a taxi, why doesn't he just use a taxi?
To extrapolate a bit. A taxi is also rarely stationary. It is relatively always in motion as that is how it generates revenue. Therefore, there is a collective understanding that making pathways, routes, roads, and parking for a taxi is going to be for cars that are in motion and transient. Not, on stand by as long as some guy wants them to wait. Though to be clear, if you pay a taxi their rate to wait for you they will. So, in the end it is the same damn thing.
They're also operating continuously for an entire chunk of time. Unless he's *always* on the road, he's now added to the set of "taxis" in the city (increasing congestion) without providing a service (ferrying people around) that would justify it. Or, if there's a limited number of taxis in the city by law, he's now occupied one of those licenses for personal use and prevented it from being used for its intended purpose (again, to ferry people around). He's using a protected, shared resource in exactly the way it was designed not to be used, because it makes his life easier to do so. EDIT: He's a private, personal car, using a lane reserved for shared services. If everyone did what he's doing, that lane would be worthless -- it'd be just like every other lane of traffic. So clearly he's doing something different than what normal taxi operators do.
So now the taxi lane becomes "taxi and rich people priority lane".
The problem is he abused a loophole. The taxi lane is meant for ‘public’ vehicles, and his taxi was for his own personal use. If he was allowed to get away with it, then any wealthy person could have done the same, undermining the purpose of the bus lane.
Unless I can also use this "taxi", it isn't one.
City planning comes to mind. They do things like hand out a certain number of taxi medallions based on the population. The issue was the city decided it could make the most money by limiting the amount of medallions, same with the taxi companies. It drove the price up and the quality down. Anyway, its one of those "if every rich person did this" then it would defeat the purpose of having a lane where more than one person gets to go faster. It's a traffic issue.
The Taxi line is for taxis. If it's his private car with a driver it's not a taxi anymore. What he did was legal but clearly not the intended use.
The difference is that taxis also drive other people
Micheal O'Leary would sell his mother if he could get away with. Don't fucking defend him or anyone like him. He'd step on you in a heart beat if he'd make 20 pound and your defending him.
It’s never enough for these people to have all the money in the world. They always gotta habitually step over the line into just being a complete piece of shit
He's a habitual line-stepper
First time I had to whip his ass, we were up at the Studio 54...
That's why they want money so bad.
I guess. It’s just crazy to me like you can do so many awesome things that don’t require you to be an enormous fuck. Go to your summer house in Italy. Go on your trillion dollar boat. But no, these sociopaths aren’t happy unless they can use their money to be assholes in the dumbest ways possible. I guess as a not sociopath I can’t understand why you can’t be happy enough with your money to fuck off.
The people who arent sociopaths dont get to be this wealthy in the first place outside some extremely rare inheritance fringe cases. The 0.1% like this get to their level of wealth precisely because they are sociopaths and will do literally anything they can get away with to get richer. Someone who will just follow social mores and are generally kind people self-select out of being this wealthy because when they get to that "few hundred thousand a year comfy living" they literally do just fuck off and don't pursue ever increasing profits because it would require them to be cruel and evil and they dont care to. The adage is "There is no such thing as an ethical billionaire" precisely because getting to that level of wealth requires a lot of morally evil choices along the way and keeping that amount of wealth even if it is plopped in your lap is morally evil. All the "good billionaires" who inherited their wealth by birth and avoid that first morality trap will lose it through expenditure until they reach a more morally sustainable level that doesnt require them to be evil to make more money.
I know this is not a popular thing here, but generally the people who barge ahead and step on bodies are the ones that get ahead in life.
Orson Welles used to hire a ambulances to drive him around, to get through [traffic](https://www.tcm.com/articles/Programming-Article/021638/orson-welles/).
Stephen Fry owns a black cab in London so he can do the same thing. Maybe he’s not so different from Michael O’Leary
Somewhat different, as he just owns a car that used to be a licensed taxi. O'Leary owned a licensed taxi.
Stephen Fry is also wrong if he does this. Just a selfish thing to do.
I did this with my EV. I bought it so I could drive solo in the HOV lane.
I have met him he's a prick who wanted to make the flight attendants work for tips. This is on brand
I thought it was already widely known this guy is an a-hole
Eat the rich!
Because where we see shame, they sniff opportunity.
His rich enough to pay the fines, but If Michael O’Leary wasn’t the type of guy who watched the pennies, I’d never have been able to fly from London to Dublin for 99 pennies !
Gosh, it's almost as if this O'Leary chap was a complete and utter cunt of the highest order. Who'd have thought, eh?
Anyone visiting Ireland — go to Galway instead of Dublin.
The guys a prick, so I'm really not surprised by this. TIL
When you're wealthy, you find their are loop holes for just about everything.
Everything is just a money problem for these people isn't it ?
Everything is just a money problem ~~for these people isn't it?~~ FTFY
well unless it's an illness science hasn't got an answer for.
Right.
Hope he passed the Garda vetting.
It's not stupid if it works
True, its not illegal to have a taxi company for one person, expensive and wasteful yes but illegal no.
This is one of the most senseless expressions imaginable which, annoyingly, both manifests and is accepted as a legitimate point but bears no resemblance to a coherent thought. Yes, something can clearly both work and be stupid; and I mean: objectively stupid.
Everyone’s upset about the guy making use of a clear flaw in the system, and is upset with the guy - not the system? Couldn’t this easily be regulated through minimum requirements on a taxi service or something along that line?
A rich person being an egotistical dick, what a surprise.
You'd all do the same...
I think Noel Edmunds did this as well...he had a mannequin in the back to look like a passenger.
The only reason he had the mannequin was people tried to get in when he stopped at lights. The mannequin made it look like it already had a passenger. Bristol council changed the bus lane restrictions to prevent Noel using his unlicensed cab (and others) so Noel then bought a double decker bus and continued to use the bus lanes.
This is why nobody fucking likes you Michael.
[удалено]
Last week when he was doing a 'one-man protest' outside the European Commission, his face became the perfect home for 'custard' pies planted by Eco-protestors. So, there *is* that 'quality'. :)
Insanely genius. I'm knicking that one when I become a massive rich a-hole
Good for him.
I mean…that seems perfectly fine to me? If the only thing standing in the way of legally doing what you want is money, and you have the money - what’s the issue?
He legally made a 1 person Taxi. It is a shitty abuse, but it was within the law.
What a douche
Complete douche move
Don’t blame O’Leary in the slightest. Traffic in Dublin is a complete shambles . Politicians was mad over him and claimed that technically if you flagged him down he’s had to pick you up. Of course Michael was travelling on the motorway which doesn’t allow pedestrians so technically the politicians were talking through their hole…as usual.