I'm curious to what degree pre-Columbian civilizations aren't well understood due to the lack of evidence beyond our control, versus the lack of study/attention to the region. I imagine the dense and difficult terrain doesn't help either.
Maybe it means something if it's insider trading, but otherwise I'm not taking advice from a man who is clearly haunted by some political obsession and willing to act against his own financial interest in pursuit of it.
It's not uncommon in some democracies to require multiple votes for major changes (such as constitutional changes or leaving/entering intergovernmental orgs). And 4 points may be a clear margin, but it's not a large margin, and polling showed an immediate shift in opinion. In terms of the Scots, 62% is an actual blowout. And I'd think it might be enough to overcome the 10 point gap on their vote on independence (pre-Brexit).
I honestly believed that Britain would find a way to hold a second referendum before Brexit, given that the polling almost universally favored "remain" after the vote, and the vote itself was so close (52% to 48%). Now what surprises me is the lack of enthusiasm for Scottish independence (62% voted to remain), though I can't claim to keep up on Scottish politics. Maybe someone knows?
If these drugs aren't coming into the United States then what in the fuck are we even doing? Murdering people just to create minor disruptions in foreign supply chains?
Great, then track them to their destination and make arrests. I can't conceive of any capital crime they've committed, can you? Plus, then there's a chance to disrupt someone other than the lowest-level operators.
You seem to be suggesting that companies should be allowed to trick us so long as there is some conceivable amount of work we can do individually to uncover the trick. But because society exists for people and not companies, most of us prefer laws that stop companies from tricking us in the first place.
Anti-discrimination laws exist because of the exceptionally well-documented tendency of people in positions of power to judge people based on their gender, sexuality, creed or the color of their skin.
> I don't think anyone is meaningfully harmed by being algorithmically shown job ads stereotypical of one gender rather than another
If you show me a lower paying girl job instead of a higher paying boy job, and I apply for and get the girl job, how is the company tricking me into applying for the lower paying job based on my gender not a problem to you? How was I not harmed by having a better opportunity hidden from me based on my presumed gender?
As a percentage of all new car sales, not by count. China is lapping us in EV adoption. If it wasn't for Google's endless pockets they'd be lapping us in autonomous driving too.
Any good explanations as to why insurance companies haven't merged? Each provide roughly the same service. Instead of one staff (and one highly paid exec team and management hierarchy), our healthcare spending has to support a dozen or so, and for what gain to the consumer?
Not requiring a degree is one thing. Not requiring any basic socialization or life experience is bizarre, maybe cultish, and sounds a little like non-sexual grooming. Hire adults, weirdos.
That's a funny way to describe deliberately wasting thousands of work hours screening, interviewing and hiring people they didn't need. It seems like those making these staffing decisions should be the first to go, yet that never seems to be the case.
So your only dispute is that you have no dispute, only the idea that things might change in the future, and some hypothetical dispute could emerge. Got it.
It's also true of Apollo in China (which has about as many miles logged as Waymo), and presumably, the limited operations of Zoox. I specifically referenced commercial operations.
In California, at least, Waymo is required to have $5 million in liability insurance. And the state has a law holding the manufacturer responsible in lieu of a driver. Though this setup has barely been tested since there have been so few incidents and the only "major" one (in CA) is still in court.
Given the limited data we have so far, it's undisputable that self-driving technologies that have been deployed commercially are dramatically safer than human driving. It will take a lot more data to know exactly how true this is, but in the meantime, 120 people die per day on average in the US due to traffic accidents.
There's books written about the Bay Area and the factors that make (or made) it uniquely suited for developing new technologies. There's even college courses about it. Some of it's surely provincial fluff, but it's undeniable that California has been an essential incubator for a whole series of world-changing, fortune-making technologies.