Can you find ANY evidence of this loophole holding up in court? You seem really sure but a quick google suggests that it's just as unrealistic and urban legendy as it sounds.
Not that I disagree, but it's not like you'd notice if a car hadn't been inspected for years and had a non-functioning airbag. At least not until you needed it.
Nice find. The account is an hour old, and is named after a meme referring to government incompetence/absurdity. I wonder how long they brainstormed that.
Did you read the complaint, or at least the first few pages of it? I'm as big a fan of the Rift as anyone, but as another commenter said, it is "pretty damning" if you look at it objectively.
I don't have a lot of hope for environmental issues. Cable news has managed to turn climate change into a debate where everyone's opinion matters. You even see people who should really know better, on sites like hackernews, saying things like, "there's no scientific consensus" and "we think global warming is happening, but we don't really have an idea of how much of it is the fault of humans".
What way is that? Reddit's staff are intentionally hands-off and it really shows. In fact, the only successfully moderated subreddit of any significant size I can think of is r/askhistorians.
-"lawyers are greedy" trope isn't really true, most lawyers would prefer to settle than go to trial (trial is more profitable for the lawyer) because it's a satisfying win for themselves and their client, most lawyers weigh ethical considerations heavily
-"reputation systems" can be gamed, are difficult to interpret, are vulnerable to selection bias, and exclude people who are too poor to own smartphones and computers
The flip side, of course, is the non-technical CEO walking down to engineering and shouting, "We need more money! Double the number of lines of code you are producing!"
I think it will probably be much more complicated than that. Suppose the car is controlled by an artificial neural network that has been trained with a combination of real world experience and human-generated driving data. There is no giant switch statement that someone wrote for the outcome. Who is to blame then? Would using that data to train the model further be sufficient accountability?
I'm having trouble understanding what point you're trying to make. Is it that if a computer bug causes an accident, the victim wouldn't have an individual to fantasize about getting revenge on? That the company that developed the software wouldn't be held accountable? That humans have "morals" that make them avoid accidents, but computers don't, so there will be more accidents? Please clarify this for us.
Wikipedia says Swedish drivers can't get a fully-privileged license until they're 20 or 21. Compare that to the U.S. where in many states a 16 year old who took a single practical driving test is considered fully qualified. I wonder how much of a difference that makes.
I'm replying to this because I can't reply to ForHackernews's comment, but this really needs to be said: "patriarchy" is most certainly NOT "vague and ill-defined to the point of meaninglessness". To say that is to dismiss decades of feminist work. If you are genuinely curious about this, the book Feminism is for Everybody (by bell hooks) is a great, accessible introduction to feminism and the (admittedly esoteric and ivory-towery) language you need to talk about it.
I'm curious about how controversial this post seems. It has been bouncing back and forth from light gray to black. Is it that people disagree with educating others? That they have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "patriarchy" and dismiss anyone who uses it? That they idea of "allies training" is somehow repulsive and unfair?
Perhaps, but taking it at face value is dangerously close to thinking it's okay to tell somebody to "man up" or "laugh it off" when they're offended by sexist/racist/offensive comments. Remember, in her example, she says, "I already knew Brad as a great guy and a huge supporter of women". It's not license to tell someone they shouldn't feel offended.
How so? The capital investments are too high. Regulation is the only thing that has successfully created competition to monopolies in our economic history.
I don't think this is the best analogy. Understanding a "full stack" isn't so you can manage specialists, it's necessary to _be_ a specialist so you can build something that you know doesn't have an obviously inherent pitfall. It's so you can prototype something without needing the time and attention of another specialist.
Users connect their card to the Uber app. Drivers simply press "start trip" and "end trip" (on their own device, after having accepted the call and arriving at the pickup location) - all the billing is done by Uber. The driver isn't paid directly.
I asked an Uber driver about surge pricing once, and he said that he doesn't see what the surge rate is. He just gets texts from Uber sometimes saying, "demand is off the charts! get out there!" So it's interesting to hear all the almost-dogmatic free market rhetoric from the company, when it seems the reality is that the market isn't very free at all.