Everyone knows how that ends. Everyone who cheers when the big companies clamp down on thinking the wrong thoughts will soon find that no one will support them when they are silenced.
I seem to remember a few years back that some major auto-maker said they would have self-driving cars on the streets by 2018. Now a bunch of them are making predictions for 2020, and Ford plans on removing the steering wheel by 2024.
In 2012 they were all saying "five years time", so we are now in the sixth year of the five year prediction.
Did you not even bother to read TFS? In the summary it quite clearly states the other self drive companies were achieving 5600 miles between interventions
No, it didn't state that. It states that the other companies claimed to achieve 5600m/intervention. Prior to this crash Uber also made outrageous claims about the progress and state of their SDC capability.
Waymo claims 5600m between interventions. Maybe it's true, but until they are forced to release some data (say, via a fatality) I see no reason for believing a claim made by a company spokesperson. Hell, I shudder when I hear the claims my employer makes about our products. Same with every previous employer.
And yet if a human had hit her they wouldn't have been judged to be at fault.
Yes, they would. Drivers are routinely held to be responsible for hitting almost stationary objects in the middle of the road. That is irrelevant anyway. What's relevant is that the car did not see an almost stationary object in the middle of the road. That the object happened to be an old lady pushing a bike is irrelevant.
Hosting a website with almost all text-based content like/. is possible on the $5/m droplet from digital ocean.
Then what would you recommend for someone whose works aren't "text-based"? Or would you instead encourage freelance photograhers, illustrators, and animators to give up their trade and instead retrain to become writers?
If they're using the website for work then they can bloody well pay for it. Their content is unavailable? Not my problem because I wasn't viewing it anyway.
If a site's owner cannot afford $5/m, then maybe they shouldn't host the site.
Then who, other than the site's owner, would host the site? I don't see each of the billion-plus Facebook members joining the IndieWeb movement and subscribing to a $15 per year domain and $60 per year VPS just to run his own website. Where would a minor even come by that sort of money, especially if other kids have already swallowed up all the lawn mowing jobs in the neighborhood?
Why would they each need their own website? You're presenting a false dichotomy. If facebook didn't exist because of no ads, why are you presenting the only other option being "everyone has their own website"? The other option, one that was prevalent before the ad-infested web, is that groups pool their money together for the $60/year needed to keep the forum open. If a forum cannot get enough paying members, why is that my problem to solve? Maybe the forum shouldn't exist if there's no support for it.
the best quality content is user generated content not full-time writer content.
The prevalence of major platforms built for wide distribution of user-generated content, such as Facebook and Twitter, has led to the use of said platforms for disinformation campaigns, such as the "fake news" battles during the 2016 U.S. election season. In a scenario dominated by user-generated content, who pays for the fact checking?
Who cares? Seriously, who cared before advertising was a thing on the internet? Besides, the disinformation campaigns were about equal for both parties in the US election - they sorta cancelled each other out in that regard. Why would I care that some rich assholes somewhere is annoyed that the media is no longer in control and the users are?
Besides, nowadays, "user-generated content" often includes video for all screen sizes and viewer processing capabilities. When the user who generated the content uploads a high-definition video, who pays to "selectively spin up more VMs" to transcode it to lower bitrates for users of small battery-powered computers or slow or metered Internet connections? Vidme shut down because it could no longer afford to serve the load.
Once again, I don't care. If *YOU* care about watching videos on the internet, maybe you go and put your money into the pot for those sites you care about. The topics I care about can survive with minimal donations. You may prefer to watch a 40m talking head explain 2m worth of content. I can read.
If you have more than a few million registered users, a 1% donation-rate of $1 per month
Of which the credit card network would pocket 0.30 USD per swipe.
So? Swipe once a year and donate $12.30 instead of $12. When I donate to the SPCA I do a big amount once a year, not a small amount each day.
The Bitcoin miners would pocket even more, as average transaction fees surpassed the equivalent of 55 USD in December of last year, though for the past month, they have stayed between 1 and 3 USD. Who pays for the research and development of a practical micropayment network?
Who cares. I don't need it. The things I am interested in won't need micropayments either. I can pay once a year.
What replacement for the lost revenue would you prefer as a way to cover the cost of writing and hosting the articles that you read?
A. Paywalls on most websites, causing your web searches to result in a lot more clicks on the back button
I wouldn't mind A since that would mean we're going to be treated as customers instead of as products and search engines/browser extensions would adapt to it
How many pages on The Wall Street Journal can I read with a subscription to The New York Times? Zero.
So? We've had this problem in the sciences for centuries - if you subscribe to one journal you will miss content from another journal.
You know what the journal solution is? Open-access journals. Author pays if they want to publish. If they cannot afford to pay for a *single* article then the content is probably worthless.
Will this work for news publications? Probably not, but I see nothing wrong with putting news publications behind a paywall. Most of their content is worthless and they'll quickly find this out behind a paywall.
In the future, I *hope* that WSJ and NYT are behind paywalls. Getting rid of advertising will speed this process up.
I set media.autoplay.enabled in my copy of Firefox ESR 52 (default browser on Debian 9) to false, but this horse was still animated. What did I do wrong?
You thought that a 15-frame image loop that is less than 1MB is the same thing as the 5 x 30MB videos that autoload on some sites. We should be lucky if advertisers are forced to use the mpeg-css - the extra work might result in fewer ads.
Let's say the web were to lose all advertisements tomorrow. What replacement for the lost revenue would you prefer as a way to cover the cost of writing and hosting the articles that you read?
A. Paywalls on most websites, causing your web searches to result in a lot more clicks on the back button
B. Shutting down commercial websites in favor of those run on hobbyists' pocket money
C. Some other option, which you plan to explain
HOSTING:Hosting a website with almost all text-based content like/. is possible on the $5/m droplet from digital ocean. I'd be surprised if this site needs more than a 100GB of storage for its archive. A less popular site with less history should do fine on a 25GB droplet. If a site's owner cannot afford $5/m, then maybe they shouldn't host the site. If more processing power is required you can selectively spin up more VMs.
The reason for the high hosting costs is due to the serving of ads - you need a fancy backend that auctions each user for ad delivery, you need to use ad-delivery frameworks written in cycle-wasting interpreted languages, you need to provide unnecessary images just so that you have at least some images that aren't ads, you need to use a client-side framework that is compatible with the ad network, your backend needs to talk to some tracking site for users, you need facebook, twitter, G+ integration.... for ad purposes.
Take the ads away and your need for space and complexity goes away.
CONTENT:You don't need full-time staff to generate content for the sites I read. In fact, the best quality content is user generated content not full-time writer content. I'd rather read a forum for comparative shopping when looking for a new car/computer/sewing-machine than a clickbait "Ten Things You Need To Know When Buying A New Car (#4 Will Shock You!)". All the most popular sites on the internet, the most visited, are the ones with user-generated content. If the site has a few hundred thousand users on some stable forum software you don't need *any* full-time staff. A few part-timers will keep things going. If you have more than a few million registered users, a 1% donation-rate of $1 per month will let you have *ONE* fulltime staff, and that person should ideally be ensuring that everything continues running.
You only need full-time staff for generating content when that content is worthless. When you need to generate "content" that pushes some particular political view, you need to pay people to write those views. When you generate content about the top 5 document editing tools, you'll need to *PAY* people to generate that content. When you need to generate content about stripping and reassembling a Chevy V8, people will (and already have) generate that content for you. How to do $FOO? Yeah, experts have chimed in on some forum somewhere already.
Frankly, the only reason it costs to run a site is because ads have driven up the costs. Sure, ads bring in (say) $10000/m, but you're essentially spending more than that just to support the fact that you want to run ads.
Taking away ads and ad-supported sites will, ironically, leave us with better content. The ads arms race has resulted in every second site needing to use clickbait links and ads just to keep the users they have, because then they can advertise to those users.
I will not miss the demise of ad-supported sites. Only advertisers will.
You should read that link. The clear majority favour stricter controls on gun ownership.
Like I already said elsewhere, you can get people to ask for stricter gun controls only by omitting the fact that there are already gun controls, which is what these questions asked.
When respondents are under the impression that anyone can buy a gun, they will want stricter gun controls. When they are informed that the controls they want are already in place they don't ask for more gun controls. The questions in the poll you link are clearly leading, and omit the fact that the "strict gun controls" are already in place; this is not made clear to the respondents. For example:
(Asked of those dissatisfied with U.S. gun policy) Would you like to see gun laws in this country made more strict, less strict, or remain as they are?
Only 46% replied in the affirmative, even though the question doesn't specify what gun controls are in place currently (will vary anyway). By no stretch of the imagination is 46% a majority.
You really should read your own damn references:
Do you think having a gun in the house makes it -- [ROTATED: a safer place to be (or) a more dangerous place to be]?
With 63% answering "safer".
If more Americans carried concealed weapons, would the United States be safer or less safe?
With 56% answering "safer".
The majority of the responses indicate that they feel safer owning weapons.
But, tell you what - you're so sure that the majority agree with your views on gun control, so here's what you do - get a politician to back your views as their main talking points for the next election, and lets see how the majority really feel about his stance on gun control.
All the posturing and polling in the world falls apart when people actually get to vote on an issue - remember the last election when you were so sure that the majority of the world was sexist purely because they did not support a Clinton? Remember all those polls that showed your preferred candidate ahead, a sure thing?
Yeah, turned out your view was a lot more marginal than you thought. I don't know why you think your point of view is now shared by more people. If they aren't voting in favour of it you should accept the fact that your views are, in general, reprehensible. While your echo chamber tolerates your whining, others simply ignore you and vote the way they want to.
Be honest - the only way to get your way is to subvert the will of the majority. If you ask them to vote on it they aren't going to vote your way, so you have to force your views on them via new laws.
If your views were reasonable you would get your way simply by presenting a candidate that campaigned on the strength of your ideology. Until you do, you're a fringe minority, widely regarded as a lunatic by the rest of us.
Remember all the doom and gloom you predicted for Brexit because of all those "racists" who voted for autonomy? THe fact that you aren't even a little bit surprised at the lack of your predictive power should tell you tons about how insular your worldview is. You have seen so little of people and cultures that all you know is the little ideologue that is your little circle. The rest of the world doesn't actually give a fuck about the things you think they should.
Businesses see that, they realize that it isn't business as usual and they need to Do Something to appeal to the silent majority who do want some form of dun control. (I believe the stats have it around 75% or more.
The stats of those who want stricter gun control are around 10%. The 75% number are those who want "some" form of gun control and who were told that there are none at the moment. The 75% are quite happy with the existing gun-controls, only they don't know it is existing.
The only thing anyone learned from gamergate is that a lot of gamers are really really shitty people.
That's funny, the "magazines" had to backpedal to get their advertising back, so at least they've learned that spewing lies about gamers is not profitable. You'll note that they haven't tried to go down that route again. The anti-gamergaters have not had their views spread like prior to gamer gate.
Don't get me wrong - I don't mind that the toxic SJW culture was given a pushback by the games journos - but I actually thought that they were slower learners and wouldn't change their stance on gamers that quick.
In the strictest sense you are compelled to emit sounds from your mouth, but you are not compelled to pretend it's your opinion.
Remind me again how this statement applies to youtubes decision? Youtube exercising arbitrary judgement is, according to you, okay while a bakery exercising arbitrary judgement is not.
And don't lecture me about protected class, that's an arbitrary and subjective human construct, not an objective construct. It is literally decided by fiat.
. You're the one who added the additional rules of without-any-human-intervention and in-all-conditions.
Well you can't compare the SDC miles in terms of safety without those qualifiers. Yoiu can't very well say "SDCs have a lower rate of accidents" because their currently aren'y any SDCs, only SDCs that are corrected by a human.
Phillips made it clear to the gay couple that he would happily sell them other items: birthday cakes, cookies, and so on. He welcomes LGBT customers; he is simply unwilling to use his artistic talents in the service of a message that he deems immoral.
So, no, that statement of yours is wrong. So are all your other assertions about being abusive. No one (well, except you) claims that the bakery was abusive.
As far as reasons go, no one should provide a good reason for refusing to publish a message. When you ask someone to write a message on your behalf and they refuse, should they need a reason?
It's compelled speech, it's compelled by the state. It's evil. Why bother with a court case if the state can compel speech? Just force them to write "I am guilty" and get it over with.
Well, if we don't know, then bragging that so many millions of miles were completed by self-driving cars is silly. So don't make the claim, because until one of the vendors releases their data on frequency, duration and periods of human intervention, the claim that we already know that SDCs are safer is baseless.
The frequency, duration and periods of human intervention in SDC is the best indicator of how well they perform. If they aren't releasing that data, even when trying to convince authorities to let them test on public roads, then that data is not showing anything promising.
They lost in court because the text on the cake is clearly an expression of the buyer's views,
That's the very definition of compelled speech, you moron. It's hardly "compelled" if it isn't the state doing the compelling.
You're in favour of the state being able to compel speech only because they compelled speech you agreed with. Speech that everyone agrees with needs no protection.
So what is your solution? Allow discrimination against gay people?
You provide a false dichotomy - there are more than the two options you present, one of which is "Allow people to choose what speech to write".
The bakery in question did not refuse service to gay people, they refused to write any text that sanctioned gay marriage.
Let me reiterate that - They sold their products to Gay people, but the refused to sell a service that involved producing speech!
There's a difference between someone who says "I don't want to say that" and someone who says "I don't want to trade with them". You're equivocating the two so that you can compel speech.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have disproven acupuncture, I would like to have some links, idiot.
It's not been disproven, it's just never been proven.
Until you prove it works, it is, by default, unproven.
Everyone knows how that ends. Everyone who cheers when the big companies clamp down on thinking the wrong thoughts will soon find that no one will support them when they are silenced.
I seem to remember a few years back that some major auto-maker said they would have self-driving cars on the streets by 2018. Now a bunch of them are making predictions for 2020, and Ford plans on removing the steering wheel by 2024.
In 2012 they were all saying "five years time", so we are now in the sixth year of the five year prediction.
Did you not even bother to read TFS? In the summary it quite clearly states the other self drive companies were achieving 5600 miles between interventions
No, it didn't state that. It states that the other companies claimed to achieve 5600m/intervention. Prior to this crash Uber also made outrageous claims about the progress and state of their SDC capability.
Waymo claims 5600m between interventions. Maybe it's true, but until they are forced to release some data (say, via a fatality) I see no reason for believing a claim made by a company spokesperson. Hell, I shudder when I hear the claims my employer makes about our products. Same with every previous employer.
And yet if a human had hit her they wouldn't have been judged to be at fault.
Yes, they would. Drivers are routinely held to be responsible for hitting almost stationary objects in the middle of the road. That is irrelevant anyway. What's relevant is that the car did not see an almost stationary object in the middle of the road. That the object happened to be an old lady pushing a bike is irrelevant.
Hosting a website with almost all text-based content like /. is possible on the $5/m droplet from digital ocean.
Then what would you recommend for someone whose works aren't "text-based"? Or would you instead encourage freelance photograhers, illustrators, and animators to give up their trade and instead retrain to become writers?
If they're using the website for work then they can bloody well pay for it. Their content is unavailable? Not my problem because I wasn't viewing it anyway.
If a site's owner cannot afford $5/m, then maybe they shouldn't host the site.
Then who, other than the site's owner, would host the site? I don't see each of the billion-plus Facebook members joining the IndieWeb movement and subscribing to a $15 per year domain and $60 per year VPS just to run his own website. Where would a minor even come by that sort of money, especially if other kids have already swallowed up all the lawn mowing jobs in the neighborhood?
Why would they each need their own website? You're presenting a false dichotomy. If facebook didn't exist because of no ads, why are you presenting the only other option being "everyone has their own website"? The other option, one that was prevalent before the ad-infested web, is that groups pool their money together for the $60/year needed to keep the forum open. If a forum cannot get enough paying members, why is that my problem to solve? Maybe the forum shouldn't exist if there's no support for it.
the best quality content is user generated content not full-time writer content.
The prevalence of major platforms built for wide distribution of user-generated content, such as Facebook and Twitter, has led to the use of said platforms for disinformation campaigns, such as the "fake news" battles during the 2016 U.S. election season. In a scenario dominated by user-generated content, who pays for the fact checking?
Who cares? Seriously, who cared before advertising was a thing on the internet? Besides, the disinformation campaigns were about equal for both parties in the US election - they sorta cancelled each other out in that regard. Why would I care that some rich assholes somewhere is annoyed that the media is no longer in control and the users are?
Besides, nowadays, "user-generated content" often includes video for all screen sizes and viewer processing capabilities. When the user who generated the content uploads a high-definition video, who pays to "selectively spin up more VMs" to transcode it to lower bitrates for users of small battery-powered computers or slow or metered Internet connections? Vidme shut down because it could no longer afford to serve the load.
Once again, I don't care. If *YOU* care about watching videos on the internet, maybe you go and put your money into the pot for those sites you care about. The topics I care about can survive with minimal donations. You may prefer to watch a 40m talking head explain 2m worth of content. I can read.
If you have more than a few million registered users, a 1% donation-rate of $1 per month
Of which the credit card network would pocket 0.30 USD per swipe.
So? Swipe once a year and donate $12.30 instead of $12. When I donate to the SPCA I do a big amount once a year, not a small amount each day.
The Bitcoin miners would pocket even more, as average transaction fees surpassed the equivalent of 55 USD in December of last year, though for the past month, they have stayed between 1 and 3 USD. Who pays for the research and development of a practical micropayment network?
Who cares. I don't need it. The things I am interested in won't need micropayments either. I can pay once a year.
What replacement for the lost revenue would you prefer as a way to cover the cost of writing and hosting the articles that you read?
A. Paywalls on most websites, causing your web searches to result in a lot more clicks on the back button
I wouldn't mind A since that would mean we're going to be treated as customers instead of as products and search engines/browser extensions would adapt to it
How many pages on The Wall Street Journal can I read with a subscription to The New York Times? Zero.
So? We've had this problem in the sciences for centuries - if you subscribe to one journal you will miss content from another journal.
You know what the journal solution is? Open-access journals. Author pays if they want to publish. If they cannot afford to pay for a *single* article then the content is probably worthless.
Will this work for news publications? Probably not, but I see nothing wrong with putting news publications behind a paywall. Most of their content is worthless and they'll quickly find this out behind a paywall.
In the future, I *hope* that WSJ and NYT are behind paywalls. Getting rid of advertising will speed this process up.
I set media.autoplay.enabled in my copy of Firefox ESR 52 (default browser on Debian 9) to false, but this horse was still animated. What did I do wrong?
You thought that a 15-frame image loop that is less than 1MB is the same thing as the 5 x 30MB videos that autoload on some sites. We should be lucky if advertisers are forced to use the mpeg-css - the extra work might result in fewer ads.
Let's say the web were to lose all advertisements tomorrow. What replacement for the lost revenue would you prefer as a way to cover the cost of writing and hosting the articles that you read?
A. Paywalls on most websites, causing your web searches to result in a lot more clicks on the back button B. Shutting down commercial websites in favor of those run on hobbyists' pocket money C. Some other option, which you plan to explain
HOSTING:Hosting a website with almost all text-based content like /. is possible on the $5/m droplet from digital ocean. I'd be surprised if this site needs more than a 100GB of storage for its archive. A less popular site with less history should do fine on a 25GB droplet. If a site's owner cannot afford $5/m, then maybe they shouldn't host the site. If more processing power is required you can selectively spin up more VMs.
The reason for the high hosting costs is due to the serving of ads - you need a fancy backend that auctions each user for ad delivery, you need to use ad-delivery frameworks written in cycle-wasting interpreted languages, you need to provide unnecessary images just so that you have at least some images that aren't ads, you need to use a client-side framework that is compatible with the ad network, your backend needs to talk to some tracking site for users, you need facebook, twitter, G+ integration .... for ad purposes.
Take the ads away and your need for space and complexity goes away.
CONTENT:You don't need full-time staff to generate content for the sites I read. In fact, the best quality content is user generated content not full-time writer content. I'd rather read a forum for comparative shopping when looking for a new car/computer/sewing-machine than a clickbait "Ten Things You Need To Know When Buying A New Car (#4 Will Shock You!)". All the most popular sites on the internet, the most visited, are the ones with user-generated content. If the site has a few hundred thousand users on some stable forum software you don't need *any* full-time staff. A few part-timers will keep things going. If you have more than a few million registered users, a 1% donation-rate of $1 per month will let you have *ONE* fulltime staff, and that person should ideally be ensuring that everything continues running.
You only need full-time staff for generating content when that content is worthless. When you need to generate "content" that pushes some particular political view, you need to pay people to write those views. When you generate content about the top 5 document editing tools, you'll need to *PAY* people to generate that content. When you need to generate content about stripping and reassembling a Chevy V8, people will (and already have) generate that content for you. How to do $FOO? Yeah, experts have chimed in on some forum somewhere already.
Frankly, the only reason it costs to run a site is because ads have driven up the costs. Sure, ads bring in (say) $10000/m, but you're essentially spending more than that just to support the fact that you want to run ads.
Taking away ads and ad-supported sites will, ironically, leave us with better content. The ads arms race has resulted in every second site needing to use clickbait links and ads just to keep the users they have, because then they can advertise to those users.
I will not miss the demise of ad-supported sites. Only advertisers will.
You should read that link. The clear majority favour stricter controls on gun ownership.
Like I already said elsewhere, you can get people to ask for stricter gun controls only by omitting the fact that there are already gun controls, which is what these questions asked.
When respondents are under the impression that anyone can buy a gun, they will want stricter gun controls. When they are informed that the controls they want are already in place they don't ask for more gun controls. The questions in the poll you link are clearly leading, and omit the fact that the "strict gun controls" are already in place; this is not made clear to the respondents. For example:
(Asked of those dissatisfied with U.S. gun policy) Would you like to see gun laws in this country made more strict, less strict, or remain as they are?
Only 46% replied in the affirmative, even though the question doesn't specify what gun controls are in place currently (will vary anyway). By no stretch of the imagination is 46% a majority.
You really should read your own damn references:
Do you think having a gun in the house makes it -- [ROTATED: a safer place to be (or) a more dangerous place to be]?
With 63% answering "safer".
If more Americans carried concealed weapons, would the United States be safer or less safe?
With 56% answering "safer".
The majority of the responses indicate that they feel safer owning weapons.
But, tell you what - you're so sure that the majority agree with your views on gun control, so here's what you do - get a politician to back your views as their main talking points for the next election, and lets see how the majority really feel about his stance on gun control.
All the posturing and polling in the world falls apart when people actually get to vote on an issue - remember the last election when you were so sure that the majority of the world was sexist purely because they did not support a Clinton? Remember all those polls that showed your preferred candidate ahead, a sure thing?
Yeah, turned out your view was a lot more marginal than you thought. I don't know why you think your point of view is now shared by more people. If they aren't voting in favour of it you should accept the fact that your views are, in general, reprehensible. While your echo chamber tolerates your whining, others simply ignore you and vote the way they want to.
Be honest - the only way to get your way is to subvert the will of the majority. If you ask them to vote on it they aren't going to vote your way, so you have to force your views on them via new laws.
If your views were reasonable you would get your way simply by presenting a candidate that campaigned on the strength of your ideology. Until you do, you're a fringe minority, widely regarded as a lunatic by the rest of us.
Remember all the doom and gloom you predicted for Brexit because of all those "racists" who voted for autonomy? THe fact that you aren't even a little bit surprised at the lack of your predictive power should tell you tons about how insular your worldview is. You have seen so little of people and cultures that all you know is the little ideologue that is your little circle. The rest of the world doesn't actually give a fuck about the things you think they should.
No, it's an actual majority. http://news.gallup.com/poll/16...
You should read your own link, the clear majority feel they would be safer if more people carried guns.
no effective = so effective
That was kinda obvious, Mr... Oh, wait
Businesses see that, they realize that it isn't business as usual and they need to Do Something to appeal to the silent majority who do want some form of dun control. (I believe the stats have it around 75% or more.
The stats of those who want stricter gun control are around 10%. The 75% number are those who want "some" form of gun control and who were told that there are none at the moment. The 75% are quite happy with the existing gun-controls, only they don't know it is existing.
The only thing anyone learned from gamergate is that a lot of gamers are really really shitty people.
That's funny, the "magazines" had to backpedal to get their advertising back, so at least they've learned that spewing lies about gamers is not profitable. You'll note that they haven't tried to go down that route again. The anti-gamergaters have not had their views spread like prior to gamer gate.
Don't get me wrong - I don't mind that the toxic SJW culture was given a pushback by the games journos - but I actually thought that they were slower learners and wouldn't change their stance on gamers that quick.
This is as close to a literal marketplace of ideas as we will ever get. The majority favour more gun controls now,
The vocal minority do. As we've seen in all recent elections, your point of view is shared by a minority of the population.
Had I been driving that car, full alert, I would have killed that chick.
You routinely hit stationary objects in the middle of the road? Just how poor is your eyesight?
A human driving 5mph in a 35mph zone is in danger of road rage or being rear-ended.
And yet it is still their fault if they hit something in the middle of their lane.
>Tesla has been losing money for the last 14 years a
there is a difference between losing money and investing money.
Someone should have told Tesla that.
In the strictest sense you are compelled to emit sounds from your mouth, but you are not compelled to pretend it's your opinion.
Remind me again how this statement applies to youtubes decision? Youtube exercising arbitrary judgement is, according to you, okay while a bakery exercising arbitrary judgement is not.
And don't lecture me about protected class, that's an arbitrary and subjective human construct, not an objective construct. It is literally decided by fiat.
. You're the one who added the additional rules of without-any-human-intervention and in-all-conditions.
Well you can't compare the SDC miles in terms of safety without those qualifiers. Yoiu can't very well say "SDCs have a lower rate of accidents" because their currently aren'y any SDCs, only SDCs that are corrected by a human.
The bakery sold cakes to people they didn't know were gay.
According to the news reports:
Phillips made it clear to the gay couple that he would happily sell them other items: birthday cakes, cookies, and so on. He welcomes LGBT customers; he is simply unwilling to use his artistic talents in the service of a message that he deems immoral.
So, no, that statement of yours is wrong. So are all your other assertions about being abusive. No one (well, except you) claims that the bakery was abusive.
As far as reasons go, no one should provide a good reason for refusing to publish a message. When you ask someone to write a message on your behalf and they refuse, should they need a reason?
It's compelled speech, it's compelled by the state. It's evil. Why bother with a court case if the state can compel speech? Just force them to write "I am guilty" and get it over with.
Well, if we don't know, then bragging that so many millions of miles were completed by self-driving cars is silly. So don't make the claim, because until one of the vendors releases their data on frequency, duration and periods of human intervention, the claim that we already know that SDCs are safer is baseless.
The frequency, duration and periods of human intervention in SDC is the best indicator of how well they perform. If they aren't releasing that data, even when trying to convince authorities to let them test on public roads, then that data is not showing anything promising.
There are probably close to 10 million miles of self-driving
There are probably close to 10 million miles of continuously-human-corrected self-driving. That's a different thing from self-driving.
Let me know when there are a few tens of thousands of miles of self-driving (no human input) in all types of conditions and roads.
They lost in court because the text on the cake is clearly an expression of the buyer's views,
That's the very definition of compelled speech, you moron. It's hardly "compelled" if it isn't the state doing the compelling.
You're in favour of the state being able to compel speech only because they compelled speech you agreed with. Speech that everyone agrees with needs no protection.
So what is your solution? Allow discrimination against gay people?
You provide a false dichotomy - there are more than the two options you present, one of which is "Allow people to choose what speech to write".
The bakery in question did not refuse service to gay people, they refused to write any text that sanctioned gay marriage.
Let me reiterate that - They sold their products to Gay people, but the refused to sell a service that involved producing speech!
There's a difference between someone who says "I don't want to say that" and someone who says "I don't want to trade with them". You're equivocating the two so that you can compel speech.
You're evil. No one forced me to say that.