d0lph

Obviously someone shaping stats to their own biases. They want to compare Tesla and Mercedes Benz crash rates because they are in a similar price range?

Mind you he has no data on automated driving crashes.

Ridiculous and short-sighted, the goal (IMO) is for all cars to be automated. And he assumes that just because lidar is expensive now, that it will be in the future, which is just naive.

If human beings dying weren't at least somewhat ok, we wouldn't drive cars.

Or perhaps us fingers-in-ears Musk fans don't expect the AP to be perfect. Especially considering how new the fields are.

Autopilot doesn't need to be perfect, just better than humans.

How did their security team identify that?

Precisely, I'm sure there's an enormous amount of infrastructure, extraction equipment, storage, processing and reprocessing.

Without the full data such a statement is vacuous.

I like nuclear, it's the obvious choice, and incredibly safe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_the_United_S...

"Uranium mining in the United States produced 3,303,977 pounds (1,498,659 kg) of U3O8 (1271 tonnes of uranium) in 2015"

The US. I wasn't aware there were a significant number of uranium mining deaths? I also assume the US can process it and safely dispose of the waste. No despotic countries of course.

China is a tough one though, I don't know how we justify it.

Right, diamonds just cost human lives.

They're all arbitrary stores of value whos intrinsic value is not justified by the market price?

I for one would like to see more snarky CTOs on HN

If it were maybe 5 years ago I would be horrified, but under Nadella they are a lot less ... Microsoft-y.

That is not how I read it.

> And yes, societies which are better at warfare tend to also have better agriculture, tools, etc, to support their military machine.

He states that there tends to be a correlation, but not causation.

Could paint over it, low tech solution.

They could subsidize the effort with a TV show(someone call amazon), I know I would definitely watch an arms race between drones and crows.

Is it? Were males not the primary fighters? Men are more built for combat (higher testosterone, more muscle mass, endurance etc.).

True, I was more ranting, hot topic.

There is a term for what you described, security theater. I'm not saying it's worthless, but it's only not worthless because terrorists might believe it's not.

I wish, the TSA was tested and it failed to stop 95% of instances of undercover Homeland Security agents from bringing on explosives and weapons.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/tsa-fails-95-perce...

I'm surprised to see so many supporting the TSA's intelligence, they have not stopped a single terrorist attack since their inception.

s/intelligence/intelligent

I wouldn't say unclear: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-31/what-do-s...

How difficult would it be to defend yourself in such a case? It seems like they have a strong case for the prior existence of this symbol.

I know it's not normally advised to represent yourself, but in this case it seems the only option.

But, on the other hand just because you can get a patent, doesn't mean it can't be challenged.

How do we know casinos and such are truly random?

I think calling people was probably part of her job.

I am not aware of any loot boxes that aren't random? Are you just saying this is possible, or do you know of an instance of this?

Looks like it's kinda up to the courts how to interpret it, but, also, it looks like your logic is valid with it being more restrictive than permissive.

"First, some courts have held that an item only falls within the preceding noun if it falls within one of the items in the list. The thinking is that if the preceding noun were being used to convey its unrestricted meaning, referring to subcategories of that word would serve no purpose. See, e.g., Application of Central Airlines, 185 P.2d 919 (Okla. 1947) (holding, with respect to use of the word including, that “if the lawmakers had intended the general words to be used in their unrestricted sense they would have made no mention of the particular classes”)." [1]

[1]: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/including-without-limitation/

Apologies, I misread your comment.

Correcting false statements matters on its own.

False equivalent, one is banning someone from the store, the other is creating compatibility when one naturally doesn't exist.

Isn't that pretty much all business though.

The ROI might be more social, imagine reviving someone from hundreds of years ago, they'd be a living relic.