That's a heck of a rabbit hole.

It appears to be something from Fabrique d'Horlogerie de Fontainemelon.

(Second GIS hit for "makers mark" arrow swiss from Pinterest, fourth related image)

I woke up at 4:30 Saturday morning prepared to do the hardest thing I've ever attempted.

It did not go as planned.

The Post has long been a champion and cheerleader for Metro. That it is now expressing such despair is telling.

It may be hard to imagine how bad a system can be that still delivers passengers to destinations daily. I am well-situated as a rider: I can walk to a station served by two lines, both of which directly connect to a station from which I can walk to work. Yet I rode my bike every day last week, and intend to do so whenever the weather allows.

Some of the original 1000-series cars delivered in the 1970's are still in service, and show their age. Since a 2009 crash, Metro only uses them in the middle of trains, away from the crumple zones at the ends. Later cars have upgrades like digital displays which can display upcoming stations, but frequently show only the name of the line.

Electronic platform signs showing arrival times were a long-demanded upgrade, but when they show approaching train times it is often bad news, and they often don't show train times at all, rather information about elevator outages, a static PSA like the website address, or stupid see-it-say-it security reminders.

The escalators are notoriously unreliable; it is noteworthy when all the escalators in a station are running. Many were built to exit a station into open air. This was a somewhat magical experience when it was snowing, rather less so in the rain. Eventually glass canopies were installed over the exits. Same with elevators; I once saw a man give up waiting for a broken elevator and take his wheelchair down the escalator.

The farecard system is complicated, fares are charged based on distance (requiring turnstile interaction at entry and exit) and there is usually a queue of confused tourists at the farecard machines on weekends. Station managers, when present, are helpful, but the fare variation, difference in paper vs. plastic RFID fares (paper farecards were recently discontinued), and primitive vending technology are challenging for newcomers.

Even a seasoned commuter must stay alert. Approaching a turnstile, the heavy jaws of the gate are likely open to admit the previous rider. You wave or wiggle or drag your SmarTrip card over the reader, and once it registers, a tiny green electronic display, appropriate for a 1980's pocket calculator, updates showing your balance. You can't read this without stopping, so you proceed through, only to have the jaws close, bruising your thigh and destroying any smartphone in your pocket. Turns out the tiny display actually showed a low balance in the same tiny green letters. Only recently were you allowed to exit a station with a negative balance of a dime or two (you can enter with a low balance because your fare is not determined until you exit).

On board, the lack of good information displays on any but the rarely-sighted 7000-series trains oblige the operators to make high-volume, low-clarity announcements about upcoming stations. These are mixed with automated warnings about the doors. Metro doors are especially touchy, and frequently require several attempts to close. (Annoyingly, they also require several seconds to open, upon arrival at a station, as the operators have to stand up and look out a window before operating doors.) Operators will sternly warn passengers of the need to offload a train if a door jams. This happens to me once or twice a year, and when a loaded train unloads onto an already-crowded platform in rush hour, it is an ugly scene.

If I am leaving work between 5 and 6, I sometimes take the train in the wrong direction, further downtown, so I can turn around and catch a less-crowded train going my way.

Official IT tools are unpolished and clunky, so most riders rely on third-party tools that depend on an API. MetroHero is a recent arrival. You can look up historical data on performance of individual lines and see that most airlines manage better performance. I don't know if WMATA has a slogan, but they might want to adopt Delta's old underachieving promise: We Get You There.

I blew my lunch hour, and my lunch budget, today at the World Bank bookstore. It's a dangerous place, half the stock is provocative remaindered titles selling at $5-7.

If any of these look good, let me know and I'll make sure they are read and ready for exchange at the next meetup.

no reason that both things can't be true

I agree, and I think Graham does too:

In the real world you can create wealth as well as taking it from others.

The trillions of dollars in wealth now held by the wealthy was created by someone sometime in the past. The familiar examples of wealth are those who created value for many people, like Bill Gates' software, the Waltons' affordable products, or Lady Gaga's music. No doubt tax law plays a part, but even a 90% marginal tax would not reduce them to everyday levels of affluence.

Have you ever looked at income tax rates, historically?

Yes, b_b and I discussed it.

No, not a very good article at all. The reader is supposed to get all nervous and upset about mechanics who "may not even be able to read or speak English."

If one of these uneducated louts leaves a tray table unattached, "the arms that hold it could easily turn into spears." Spears on a Plane!

All anyone should care about is safety, right? When you express concern about effective inspections, you are really interested in safety, aren't you? Do you value inspections that do not improve safety? Are "inspections" worth anything on their own?

b_b says that safety is improving even as maintenance is going to uninspectable hinterlands instead of to $100/hour domestic workers. But there's one exception to the outsourcing trend: "American still does much of its most intensive maintenance in-house in the U.S." So is American Airlines safer?

The Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre says no. American Airlines was rated #38 in 2012, #42 in 2013, #41 in 2014, and #39 in 2015. United Airlines performed better (#30 in 2015), Delta even better (#26), and low-cost carriers Southwest (#24) and JetBlue (#9) did better still.

The number one airline for safety is Cathay Pacific. Perhaps speaking Chinese does not impair your ability to maintain aircraft after all. Two other top-ten airlines are based in Taiwan and China.

A century ago, Upton Sinclair wrote his novel The Jungle to call attention to the plight of workers in the slaughterhouses, but what really got people upset was learning how unsafe their meat was. Safety is an issue here, too. The Federal Aviation Administration is supposed to be inspecting...

Do we have evidence for this belief that inspections = safety? JACDEC says that "There is a direct correlation between the safety of a airline and the competence and transparency of the controlling authorities." I suspect there is a correlation between national prosperity and both of these factors. Eyeballing the safety list suggests a close relationship between airline safety and GDP.

The reality is that from now on it’s going to be up to the airlines to police themselves... Have you noticed that this sort of arrangement never works?

No, I haven't noticed that. Evidence, please?

Here's an anecdote about how the "inspection" strategy worked once:

• Airline cuts corners and takes chances with safety.

• FAA sees problems but does not inform the public.

• FAA "bent over backwards to keep the carrier flying."

• FAA finally sends a memo saying the airline should be grounded.

• Memo gets "lost in the maze at FAA."

• Airline has an accident, killing 110 people.

• FAA administrator assures travellers that the airline is safe.

Despite the findings from their own investigators, FAA officials have repeatedly backed up Jordan's assertions about ValuJet's safety and did so again Thursday. "We believe that the airline is safe, and it is safe," said FAA Administrator David Hinson.

Good thing this is not a country rife with corruption.

the products of cheap human labor that I wear and consume, as you point out.

You refer to my mention of sweatshops. That could make for an interesting conversation, if you don't mind departing from the topic of meat.

I don't oppose sweatshops. I don't prefer clothing manufactured in facilities that guarantee comfortable conditions for workers.

Suppose you are scandalized by this information. Suppose that you determine to raise my awareness of the considerable human suffering that occurs in sweatshops.

Perhaps you watch documentaries to learn more about what happens in sweatshops. You discover alarming details. You feel certain that I can only act so casually toward sweatshops because I am ignorant of the truth.

You post shocking photos of sweating, weary children bent over sewing machines, of corpses burned in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. You recount stories of female workers who agreed to have sex with managers in order to get better working conditions, and you use the word "rape" when describing this scenario.

Your strong feelings on the topic lead you to use strong language in discussing the matter, to the point of being verbally abusive toward me.

What would you think if I focused on the shocking nature of your images, and your not-strictly-precise use of the word "rape," and your abusive language, in my response? Wouldn't it seem a little convenient, a little self-serving, that I deliberately miss your point by focusing on the manner and details of your presentation? I can dismiss your entire message because you do not present it in a calm, emotionless, and unoffending manner. (For your part, you feel that it will be all too easy to ignore the message if you do not raise your voice and display arresting images. You feel your only choices are to be ignored or reviled.)

What if I found exceedingly rare examples of sweatshops that were exceptions to the patterns you are concerned about? What if I asked you ridiculous questions that were obviously not honest attempts at gaining understanding, but carefully-crafted "gotchas" designed to trip up your argument? ("What about factory robots? Aren't they abused too?")

Perhaps no one would blame me if I ignore you when you become abusive and incendiary. But I feel like I am doing myself a disservice by not getting to the bottom of the question "What is this person so worked up about?", even if I have to make an effort to overlook the excesses of your presentation.