Yes, even for them, the information they can get through a phone is lifesaving. They can learn how to build water supply and sanitation systems and shelter. They can learn how to farm and forage for food. They can find the best way to cross international borders and become a refugee. And so on, they can improve every aspect of their lives. Information is power, and with a smartphone they have access to the entire world, rather than just word of mouth knowledge in their local community.

Obviously, places without any form of electricity are screwed, but satellite internet is rapidly becoming cheaper and more accessible so soon they won't even need cell coverage.

2. Those in extreme poverty need access to more important things than access to these gadgets.

We're going down a sidetrack here but this is just false. A smartphone these days is a ticket to many things required to live. Applying for jobs, applying for government services, buying essential items cheaply, cheap/free education.

Don't buy a Windows key. If Windows was installed initially it should remember your hardware and activate. If it doesn't, there's numerous ways to pirate Windows.

The vast majority of Australians live in a densely populated strip on the east coast. It should have high speed rail from Melbourne to Brisbane decades ago.

Traditional Australian utes were just passenger cars with the back chopped off. So they had the same footprint as passenger cars with the same safe front style and efficient practical design. Then the American pickup trucks arrived, stole the term "ute", and now proper utes are extremely rare.

What are you talking about? If we limit this discussion to somewhat democracies, the government is a net benefit. Without it there would be anarchy.

The government is the cause of and solution to most problems in society. Better governments are possible, but it's a hard fought struggle.

Third party servers aren't always enough. Microsoft managed to ruin 3rd party Minecraft servers.

You're the person that suggested removing a bus lane to "reduce traffic". And now you're suggesting that because the buses suck we should make the buses even worse. Something about that cause seems a little... dumb.

Why would smaller mean less collisions?

Easier to dodge. Less physical area to hit.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't wear hi-viz, lights, ect. Of course they should. But we need to stop blaming cyclists when cars are the thing actually causing the harm. I'm trying to find a link to statistics on numbers of deadly crashes not involving a car, I recall seeing it somewhere and it was less than 1%.

Sorry, that may have come across wrong. I get mad that ebikes are hobbled to painfully low speeds while the actually dangerous cars run rampant at much higher speeds with no speed limiters. One of the great things about a fast ebike is that it can keep up with 30, or sometimes even 50km/h car traffic, making it usually the fastest way to get around a city. In some situations cycling slower is more dangerous as it encorages cars to make dangerous passes. 22.5km/h is slow for a pedal bike, hobbling many of the potential benefits of ebikes.

I'm just genuinely confused what your point is. The weight of a passenger train per passenger is meaningless. I was vaguely curious that my local EMUs are 200-600kg depending on which capacity figure you use, but that information is of no use to me.