The fact that iWork generates a different file format with every version and refuses to open the old ones has to be one of the most insane things I've seen in four decades of computer use. Thank goodness for plain text files and the backward compatibility in Word. I'm far less sympathetic regarding iCloud drive. It's optional and you chose to activate it despite having devices that are not compatible. I use Macs every day at home and work so I certainly understand your frustration with the software direction. Like you I would also prefer configurable hardware. Every Mac I owned during the 680x0 and PPC era had expansion slots, but Steve Jobs always wanted the Mac to be an appliance in a sealed box and I have to admit I knew that when I bought my first one. Unlike you I've never really liked using Windows and never learned Linux. Windows PCs were tools for work and I was almost always happier with my Macs, even during the bad old days of extension conflicts. I don't like subscription software. I like to "own" my music and software not rent them. Those things, along with an Apple-centric job, keep me in their ecosystem for now. I'm not invested in iOS so in theory I could use any brand of phone, but I'm not comfortable telling Google everything I do. They already know more about me than I'd like them to.

According to the survey most users over 30 want the impossible: high speed and stops located everywhere they might want to go. To achieve the former one must sacrifice the latter. High speed demands few stops meaning that it's quite likely the train/bus simply doesn't stop where you want it to. To achieve high speed one must also sacrifice access time. When stops are farther apart passengers have to travel farther to reach one. When stops are in a dedicated lane passengers have to wait at crosswalks. When the system is grade separated passengers have to climb stairs or wait for elevators. Designing a transit system that will appeal to the maximum number of people is complicated. Adding one more stop may bring in another 100 passengers, but may increase travel time for 100 others by enough that they choose to stop using the service. There is no single right answer, even when everyone you serve is young and fit. Trying to serve the diverse needs of the entire population is much more complicated. You have to account for people who will walk 1200m and those who can't walk more than 100m. You have to serve those who have no other means of getting around while still managing to appeal to people who own cars. You need lots of seats for seniors, the disabled, the pregnant and those who simply won't take transit unless they can sit down. At the same time you must strip out seats so others can bring their scooters, wheelchairs and strollers, and so the vehicle can fit more standees at rush hour.

"Quickly, but not very fast" doesn't read well, but it does make sense. I can get from my bedroom to the kitchen very quickly (only takes a few seconds), but I'm not moving fast (probably only 2 mph). Slow transit isn't just useful, it's essential. Slow likely means it stops every 200m. If you live 400m from an arterial road then you're already walking 500m to get to any shop/service/transit stop. Rapid transit generally uses 1km or 1mile spacing so the walk to a station could easily be 1200m. How many people are going to walk 1200m when it's freezing cold, scorching hot or pouring rain? How many seniors are going to walk 1200m even when the weather is perfect? What percentage of us will be seniors in the next few decades? Slow transit connects one urban "village" to the next one where a different mix of shops and services may be available. A well designed local transit system will connect several "villages" to major destinations like hospitals and major employment centres. The keys are integrating with faster transit and reducing inconvenience and delay caused by having to transfer from one slow transit vehicle to another.