No, clearly not. But I've already explained how they are substitutes and you just ignored my point.
Not that they need to be substitutes in the first place. Any mode of transportation is going to be more or less dangerous than any other mode of transportation, and that alone is enough to compare them. You don't need to be able to literally substitute a plane for a motorcycle in every situation to analyze the differences in the danger between them.
They literally are substitutes. If planes didn't exist then more people would ride motorcycles for very long distances. They may even take their motorcycles on ferries to make their trips possible if they have to.
There is not an evident skew, and you haven't been able to articulate the source of one.
The number of miles motorcycles are ridden and the number of motorcycle deaths is unfortunately not a small sample size, so your shopping cart example isn't really a great analogy.
But that's the whole point of normalizing by distance traveled. If you drive your motorcycle 100x less and it still kills you, then that's evidence that driving motorcycles is more dangerous than cars.
You say it's bad because it normalizes by distance traveled, but you don't say why normalizing by distance is bad. It makes perfect sense to me as it treats all modes of transportation equally. It allows you to approximate the answer to, "if I have to travel a set distance to my destination then which mode of transportation is safest?"
This is somewhat hateful of you to say, and it's also false. People don't take joy in feeling angry, and feeling angry doesn't make you feel powerful. Anger can feel a lot better than sadness, embarrassment, and fear because it externalizes the cause of your emotional state. Anger is reinforcing because it displaces those other negative emotions. They aren't getting angry because they enjoy it. It's just a coping mechanism.
I used to struggle with this type of road rage myself. It started out with occasional shouting at other drivers and slowly grew to a near constant state of anger whenever I was driving a car. It felt awful. There was no part of me that liked it. In my case, the anger was almost always a reaction to feeling scared about being late. I got over it by making sure I always left with extra time to spare.
What you wrote doesn't match any of the controllers. Did you mistype?
It can also mean to overcharge someone, which is likely how it is used here. The exorbitant price of sacrificial animals is multiply attested. The poor couldn't afford it
I'm not sure how your interpretation is meant to work out. I don't see how people would be compelled to give their belongings to someone if the threat is directed towards random sacrificial animals. Are you trying to say that they were stealing from the sacrificial animals themselves, and that's why he called them robbers? It doesn't make any sense to me.
That's not true. He denounced them for price gouging gentiles who came to the temple to make sacrifices. He didn't call them murderers - he called them thieves.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21%3A12-13%2CMark+11%3A15-18&version=NASB
I hear where you are coming from, but I think your criticisms are misdirected. For the majority of businesses, using an infrastructure provider is a sensible decision that leads to greater security and stability in the long run for less money than trying to build the same thing on their own. This isn't a decision made out of stubbornness, laziness, or ignorance about IT. It's simply that it's the better option for each individual business.
But when most companies make the decision to use an infrastructure provider, outages and risks are centralized. As you pointed out, the services you rely on are likely to use a provider even if you don't use one, so this isn't a problem that a business can solve by buying a server and hiring an IT team. These massive failures aren't a sign that businesses need to make different decisions. It's a sign that the infrastructure providers must work harder and spend more money to improve their internal isolation.
When a bridge collapses because the pedestrians happen to walk in step with the resonant frequency of the bridge, we don't blame the pedestrians for walking incorrectly or for deciding to take the bridge instead of a boat. We blame the designer of the bridge for failing to account for the mundane stresses that the bridge is expected to sustain.
That's also true. To be honest, I don't know of any examples in which a government shutdown directly resulted in non-economic legislation being passed, if that's what you mean. That's not to say I agree that the best you get out of a government shutdown is for one party to carry more blame than the other--I'll have to spend more time looking into it.
Maybe you should just try being lucky. I found a critical security vulnerability while working on my scraping project. I told them, they paid me and gave me written permission to scrape.