Deceptive title and report as this is ranking based on factors like like “company's vision, go-to-market and production strategies, partners, tech, commercial readiness…” Basically everything except for actual driving ability, which makes this highly subjective and biased.
As an athlete who eats like a highschool linebacker (in Colorado), I've been watching eggs prices climb up $0.50 each week for a dozen, then jump $3 in one week. Now there's none on the shelves at all.
At least in California it was more like "We voted for this in overwhelming numbers because industrialized animal cruelty does not align with our society's values."[1]
Unfortunately for the chickens, a government is supposed to serve the interests and well-being of its citizens, not that of its livestock (insert joke about there being no difference).
Maybe the majority of the citizens wants to live in a society that is kinder to animals? (That said citizens might not fully appreciate the knock on effects that will have on costs is a separate question. Do people actually want to be kinder to animals if it means eggs cost twice as much?)
Well those people can already buy free-range chickens. This is preventing people who'd rather pay less for cruelly-treated chickens from making that choice.
Given that it's a democratically elected government that made the regulation I don't think there is anything the "people who'd rather pay less for cruelly-treated chickens" can do here other than try to lobby for the rule to be reverted or moving somewhere where animals can be treated "cruelly" without repercussions. It's not always only a question of free market.
Treating the short term adjustment effects of a new rule as the same as the eventual steady state impact of the rule makes arguments against new rules seem deceptive and misleading
Activist purchasing is something I will never understand. If a car is a better car for the price than anything else then you are only hurting yourself by not purchasing it. It seems like pure hatred of someone to hurt yourself to make them somehow feel worse because you don’t like them.
Seems like the FBI is trying to confiscate the boxes themselves, and in the process of getting the boxes only, they happen to take out the contents. I could see that line of reasoning, effectively letting them search the boxes, but why keep all contents that weren’t suspected of a crime, and why not return contents once found not to be part of a crime?
Reminds me of the account on Reddit that used to get huge karma and tons of top comment claiming to be an expert on everything, but everything they commented on was a different subject and in every comment they claimed a phd or master from a different university and some years of experience studying X. It was actually very entertaining to look at their comment history of every comment having thousands of upvotes because they started it out with a completely phony “I got my PhD at ______ in _____ and spent ___ years working for the largest ______ researcher…” In order to build fake credibility and it totally worked. Hundreds of thousands of karma from that and insane amounts of bad information as top conments.
This is important, he can fund it but not forever. He’s owned it what 2 weeks now? In the current market I’m lucky if I can order paint for a small building and have it arrive in 2 weeks - these days it takes more like 3-6 months. He appears to be moving at lightning speed with these changes. The thing is, when you are moving 10 times as fast as normal you can trip up 10 times as much and still arrive on time.
I don’t think it has to be a bad thing. It be an interesting statistical problem. What is worse, a person who drives sleepy for 5 hours each day or a person who gives up control to a computer for 5 hours each day. Point being we are attempting to compare FSD to complete perfect driving, when the comparison should be with current drivers. If it is an improvement or reduction in crashes why not use it? Maybe it’s because we aren’t sure who to blame in case something goes wrong? I know back seat drivers that get uncomfortable as a passenger a lot even with a driver with zero accidents and would rather drive themselves, yet have crashed several times themselves at their fault. They misjudge their own abilities and the situation, a need for certain aggressive driving. I think many are misjudging the average drivers ability without self driving and we could be causing a lot of loss of life by not taking a statistically better option out of human hubris.
This is not a valid comparison, though. Rather, consider the extrapolation: "drive for 20 hours or let a computer drive for 20 hours?". (edit: the extrapolation is intended to highlight the absurdity of the premise.) The correct answer is to mitigate the risk with breaks or safer alternative transport such as a hired driver. It's not a closed system with only two possible solutions.
If the solution is not tenable, the plan should be aborted. Not rammed through via abuse of technology.
I didn’t say it was a closed system. I’m just saying one might be better than the other, I don’t know how you do that other than compare the possibilities. If everyone had a private driver then yea that options is also better but we live in a human world not a perfect world.
You implied that the only solution to an unsafe decision was a similarly unsafe decision. My argument is that the real solution would involve some other compromise. If this specific scenario was a work commute, for instance:
- move closer to work
- secure lodging to amortize the commute over more days
- arrange a carpool
- work remotely to reduce the cost of any of the above options
I agree. Self driving, VR, and 3D printing all feel like they are in the same boat together. It’s tech that if it was a little better it could get full adoption but the current solutions feel like they aren’t enough for full adoption. Self-driving lacks because what’s the point if you have to self monitor at the same time, VR because the resolution and frame rate are barely better than a desktop computer so the immersion isn’t there, and 3D printing lacks because it’s extremely slow, struggles with certain designs, and needs sanding after - again all are missing the primary problems they mean to address and are only half-fixes. Why do I want to 3D print something when it’s going to take me 2 hours to sand down the ugly edges also? Why do I want full self driving when I have to stay just as alert? Why do I want immerse myself in a virtual reality that feels so fake?
I think this is only confusing because most people’s only understanding of autopilot is what they watched in movies when the pilot flicks a button and leaves the cockpit go fight a villain so they imagine autopilot means FSD which it isn’t at all in its original use in planes either.
