CFO: "We get to keep a productive employee doing the things he's been doing well, without having to pay for his continuing education and a networking opportunity that may wind up drawing him away from us. I.e., we save money both by not paying exorbitant rates for professional conferences (who charge both the attendees and the exhibitors and thus make money from both ends of the candle), and by not having to go through the hiring process for his replacement. He's also easily replaceable and posting online that he's happy here, so the chances of having to find someone new are low and the cost of doing so is also relatively low. We may even be able to replace him with an H1B and pay less overall. "
The important question to ask is whether the conference will give you things relevant to what you are doing for your current company, or is it to gain new skills that will be useful someplace else.
Whether you expect your employer (the government) to pay for your education is your choice. You have a job you like, so unless you feel it is critical you go on their dime then you might want to keep the devil you know.
I made i clear that I was expressing my opinion, not telling you what to do.
Telling me your opinion of what I should have done is still telling me what I should have done, because you telling me what I should have done is only ever going to be your opinion.
Does that mean you think I shouldn't express my opinion,
Nowhere did I say you didn't have the right to express your opinion. I was simply pointing out the irony of you telling me me what I should have said in the same article where you admit that telling other people what they should or should not do or say is beyond your control.
You're completely missing the point.
Why should ICANN get to have a free money machine, and what do they intend to spend it on?
Maybe that's why I said the following in what you replied to?
The only issue would be where the money goes, not that Amazon got a TLD of its own. Who makes a profit from ICANN domain sales?
The issue seemed to be that Amazon was getting a TLD and ending competition and nobody else had any chance anymore. That's what the people I replied to complained about. Not the "free money machine".
Really? You don't think selling out an entire TLD is a little wonky?
No, I don't. It's not like there is only one and Amazon got it. There are a large number already and more will be created in the future.
but isn't this a little odd when ICANN could just create any number of bullshit TLD's and auction them off for huge profits to companies while everyone else has no chance?
So what if you can't get a domain in the.buy TLD? Big deal. The only issue would be where the money goes, not that Amazon got a TLD of its own. Who makes a profit from ICANN domain sales?
If you can't see that, then I worry about you.
Yeah, if I'm not all doom and gloom about one TLD, that didn't exist yesterday so already had no registrations, not allowing you to register a name tomorrow, it must be my problem and not one of chicken little's.
What is your problem? You couldn't have a domain name under.buy yesterday, you won't be able to get one tomorrow. What's the big difference? What's changed?
Now that Amazon has won, the competition is over, and the global Internet community can go broadly fuck themselves.
Yeah, because it isn't like anyone can go get a domain name in some other TLD and still have a viable and active web presence or anything. It's over. The Internet belongs to Jeff Bezos. Film at 11.
I would say that it might have been more productive to more fully quote me:
Just as you admit that controlling what other people do or think is seldom within one's ability, so is telling other people what points they should be making and how broadly they ought to discuss things.
My point is, and remains, that the concept of "actually fixing the problems of discrimination, abuse and violence" (the part I quoted) requires telling other people how to think and behave. It also requires a correct definition of "discrimination, abuse and violence", and one worker telling a blond joke within earshot of a woman just doesn't reach that level. Sending 50 people to a class to learn how not to "discriminate, abuse or be violent" when they aren't doing that to start with is still a waste of everyone's time. Sending them to a class to learn how not to violate some law that has ridiculous definitions of "discrimination, abuse and violence" is only slightly less a waste of time.
This is the key question, because unless Canaduh expects it's Netflix using citizens to pay a tax on each video they watch, it's really NONE of their business...
There are a large number of people in the US who care very much if the companies they deal with have corporate offices in the US so they will be paying US business taxes on money they make by selling things in the US. Burger King has a lot of people angry because it bought Tim Horton's and it was claimed that they were moving their corporate HQ to Canada to avoid US taxes. Several other companies are doing the same thing, and our President has said he's going to stop this if the congress doesn't.
So, perhaps, the Canadian government has a vested interest in knowing how may of Netflix' customers are in Canada so they know if Netflix is paying the right amount of Canadian taxes on the money they make from Canadian services?
Netflix is in the business of promoting what's good (and their own stuff...).
Netflix neither knows nor cares what is good or bad, they're in the business of selling people what people will pay to see.
If you want Canadians to consume canadian made stuff then just keep on making good stuff.
Those laws were created a long time ago when Canada was pushing back against the USification of broadcast television content. It has nothing to do with trying to force Canadians to consume Canadian made stuff.
I, for one, am glad those laws exist, because it promoted the creation of shows like SCTV (not the SCTV New York dreck) and "You Can't Do That On Television". Gosh I miss Moose. And even Barth.
In my experience, reasonable, decent people all agree that harassment and violence are inappropriate. The horrible things a small minority of people do should be roundly criticized and much more aggressively prosecuted.
Of course. This is obvious. Horrible things are bad. The problem comes in defining what is horrible.
If you think what someone is doing is horrible but they don't, then saying "you love doing horrible things" is a lie. They don't love doing horrible things and they aren't doing anything horrible -- in their definition of horrible. It is a complete waste of time to argue on that level. If the first statement out of your mouth when trying to get someone to change their behavior is obviously (to them) a lie, they have no reason to listen to anything else you say.
So, in this context, the question that includes "comments about physical beauty" and even "cognitive gender differences" in the category "sexual assault or harassment", and then reports that 71% of women report being sexually assaulted or harassed, is a dishonest question. I.e., a lie. Some percentage of those answering the question yes will have experienced the horrible and terrifying situation of a coworker telling them they're nicely dressed or wearing pretty earrings. Or they may have seen a copy of the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" on someone's desk. Or, if a man, they'll have looked inside any copy of Elle or Vogue or Cosmo.
It's a waste of energy that could be used in actually fixing the problems of discrimination, abuse and violence.
As one gets older, or if one obtains the help of any 12 step program, you learn that you have very little control over what other people do or think. Most of the efforts to fix these problems are a waste of energy. Sending 50 people to a workplace sexual harassment prevention seminar for the day will waste the time of all fifty people. It accomplishes two things: it satisfies legal requirements for such "training" to have been given, and it provides a better basis for firing someone who is actually causing a problem. Of course it doesn't look so good if the actual problem is counseled privately the first time and then fired the second, so 49 people have to be told not to do "horrible things" in the workplace when they are already not doing horrible things. But that seminar didn't fix anything.
I think it is safe to say: One in four Americans are either idiots or trolling. I could believe either or even both.
I love lying to survey takers. If someone wants to waste my time asking me stupid questions, I'll waste his with stupid answers.
I especially love lying to push-pollers. "Why yes, I do favor a candidate who eats babies and pours toxic chemicals down his toilet. What I can't stand are politicians who write federal legislation exempting politicians from the do-no-call list."
The dinky little roundabouts that you see in the US don't do much about that level of congestion.
That's because they aren't true roundabouts and aren't treated as such legally.
We had one in our town. I treated it as a roundabout. I got a ticket for failing to yield to someone who was waiting to enter from a street to my right. That's right -- traffic in the circle was expected to yield to traffic waiting to enter the circle.
Actually, as Americans we have many rights not enumerated in the constitution.
All of that being true, there is still no "right to know" when applied to "everything that everyone in the government knows". For example, there is no "right to know" that the ambassador from some certain country is a dick and the best way to deal with him is to scratch his back a lot before asking for anything. What do you learn from that, and what does it benefit you to know? On the other hand, the idea that he's a dick is really counterproductive to future negotiations but is good to know so those negotiations can be productive.
And that kind of information is some of the really secret stuff that we all had a "right to know" from the Wikileaks documents.
I would love a free market for broadband Internet. The big companies that offer broadband Internet, though, don't want one and will use all of their power and influence to keep one from emerging.
You're really trying to argue that government run competition is how you create a "free market"? Really?
It also destroys their argument that they can't provide good Internet in the US because of the low population density.
No, it just shows that when you remove the requirement for prices to cover costs and yield a profit, governments can do what private companies cannot. If the existing telecom could cover any operating losses by just dipping into the taxpayer general fund, you'd see prices go way down -- covered by taxes, of course.
And that is what makes government competing with existing private companies wrong. It isn't fair in any sense of the word, and the private companies, even if the courts say they are free to compete if they want to, have no way they'll make any return on their investment. I mean, existing markets are already defacto monopolies (not dejure) because even in major markets the density of consumers is too low to support two systems in direct head to head competition. If both TW and Comcast could make a profit operating in the same markets, they would. They'd both get franchises and both run physical plant and you'd have a choice.
and the country you did invade is falling into civil war.
That's what happens when you announce to the world the date that you're going to pull your troops out of a country where you're trying to help the government restore some semblance of order. All the opponents have to do is go into hiding, planning for the day when you leave. They have no reason to surrender if they know they're going to win on a certain preset day.
You do realize that "politically correct, professionally offended people" is a stereotype, right?
Actually, no it isn't. It is a description for a group of people that actually defines group membership.
A stereotype would be to say that liberals are all politically correct, professionally offended people. You see how that works? A group defined by some other property is claimed to have another potentially unrelated property assigned to it.
For another example, there is a group of people who play online or video games, called "gamers". To then say that "gamers are misogynists" would be stereotyping.
The historical record tells us the primary supporters of the separation of church and state were Protestant Christians. Why? Because they hated Catholics.
Hardly. It was because they saw what the Church of England had done to non COE people and wanted to prevent that here. They knew their history a lot better than you because it was much fresher in the memory of those who fled England to get away from it.
As long as you're only teaching the children your personal faith, it's not government respecting an "establishment" of religion.
Right. If you're only teaching children of your "personal faith" then you are running a private school, and private schools are not a government establishment of religion. Kinda like the Catholic schools that are also not a government establishment of religion.
Leaving it alone is accomplished through the demise of our decedents.....
No, "leaving it alone" is accomplished by doing nothing. Decedents will have nothing to do with it. How can they? They're already dead.
You claimed the OP was looking for the death of all humans. That's just false, and I corrected you on it. Leaving it alone means not forcing the system we don't fully understand to try to change to our whim, unlike those who would whip the waves to stop the tide.
Those who don't use the decades we have to adapt, well, they're standing on the shore whipping the waves or floating out to sea in the house they expected the government to protect. But to claim that expecting people to adapt is calling for the death of all humans is just patently absurd. Kind of like blaming something on the demise of decedents.
I read the parent. He said that those who are around today won' t be around long enough to see the recovery. As in, the recovery will take longer than a human lifetime.
Also read you, where you changed that to "kill all the humans" and asked who would be around. I told you: anyone who isn't stupid enough to stand still and expect the government to solve their problems for them.
Ah, you one of those kill all the humans types: "just by leaving it alone and waiting long enough." So, who is going to do the waiting around?
All the people who are smart enough to move away from the coast when the sea level takes a couple of decades to rise based on the couple of decades it will take for Greenland to melt.
The ones who won't be waiting around are the ones who are washed out to sea while standing in their houses surrounded by the incoming tide wondering when the government is going to do something about this problem. I.e., the true Darwin Award winners.
Also, fun fact: the republicans opposed the creation of the US DoED as well. Apparently they were of the opinion that federal control of education is unconstitutional because federal control of education is not in the constitution...
FTFY. Maybe you don't realize that opposition to the creation of a federal government department to control something isn't defacto opposition to whatever that something is, so you make your flamebait accusation...
Natural selection means some get left behind. Humans work very hard to avoid that.
And you believe that none are? When did the death rate for those under 80 reach zero?
When you can read "work very hard at" and a later comment about there still being infant mortality, and come up with thinking that I said that nobody ever dies, well, I know you're not here to discuss this honestly.
Last century, I worked for a magazine sales company that did telephone soliciting.
I'm fascinated by this concept of "magazine" to which you refer. Do you have a newsletter I might subscribe to that explains it in more detail?
Then I set the phone down and go about what I was doing.
In other words, you pay for a phone line that you can't use because the guy hung up thirty minutes ago and you haven't gotten back to hang yours up yet.
I'd be willing to bet that said data will show that the gross majority of accidents happen just after the driver takes control, and are a direct result of driver actions.
Just like the majority of aircraft incidents are caused by "pilot error" because, well, there was a pilot on board and he didn't stop whatever bad thing it was from happening. Autopilot went south, drove the elevator trim full nose up, and the pilot couldn't get the nose back down before the plane went into a stall/spin/crash/die? That was his error. Or he failed to cancel his flight because he didn't detect the problem before taking off. That's "pilot error", too, just worded as "improper preflight".
So from what you say, as a potential driver of an autonomous vehicle, whenever it barfs and tries to hand control over to me, I should refuse. Otherwise, when I can't fix whatever situation the car has gotten me into it will be my fault ("accidents happen just after the driver takes control"). To keep from being sued for the accident, I'll have to take the position that "hey, I was never in control, it was Google that failed, sue them."
Of COURSE a large number, even majority, of accidents in autonomous vehicles will happen "just after" the vehicle has bailed out on the driver and said "tag, you're it". Especially to those drivers who want to abandon their responsibility for their own safety and sleep instead of drive. "I said WAKE UP human, I can't deal with thi.... (sound of bending metal) oh never mind."
Because the cost to purchase a feature is not necessarily reflective of the cost to implement that feature. The difference between the two is called profit.
Which includes profit for lawyers, because you can take it as a fact that there will be lawsuits every time an autonomous vehicle kills or injures someone. That's a natural side-effect of outrageous promises that would be called "false advertising" were the same kind of claims applied to a toaster or television.
Slashdot Mirror
CEO: "What happens if we don't, and they stay?"
CFO: "We get to keep a productive employee doing the things he's been doing well, without having to pay for his continuing education and a networking opportunity that may wind up drawing him away from us. I.e., we save money both by not paying exorbitant rates for professional conferences (who charge both the attendees and the exhibitors and thus make money from both ends of the candle), and by not having to go through the hiring process for his replacement. He's also easily replaceable and posting online that he's happy here, so the chances of having to find someone new are low and the cost of doing so is also relatively low. We may even be able to replace him with an H1B and pay less overall. "
The important question to ask is whether the conference will give you things relevant to what you are doing for your current company, or is it to gain new skills that will be useful someplace else.
Whether you expect your employer (the government) to pay for your education is your choice. You have a job you like, so unless you feel it is critical you go on their dime then you might want to keep the devil you know.
I made i clear that I was expressing my opinion, not telling you what to do.
Telling me your opinion of what I should have done is still telling me what I should have done, because you telling me what I should have done is only ever going to be your opinion.
Does that mean you think I shouldn't express my opinion,
Nowhere did I say you didn't have the right to express your opinion. I was simply pointing out the irony of you telling me me what I should have said in the same article where you admit that telling other people what they should or should not do or say is beyond your control.
You're completely missing the point. Why should ICANN get to have a free money machine, and what do they intend to spend it on?
Maybe that's why I said the following in what you replied to?
The issue seemed to be that Amazon was getting a TLD and ending competition and nobody else had any chance anymore. That's what the people I replied to complained about. Not the "free money machine".
Really? You don't think selling out an entire TLD is a little wonky?
No, I don't. It's not like there is only one and Amazon got it. There are a large number already and more will be created in the future.
but isn't this a little odd when ICANN could just create any number of bullshit TLD's and auction them off for huge profits to companies while everyone else has no chance?
So what if you can't get a domain in the .buy TLD? Big deal. The only issue would be where the money goes, not that Amazon got a TLD of its own. Who makes a profit from ICANN domain sales?
If you can't see that, then I worry about you.
Yeah, if I'm not all doom and gloom about one TLD, that didn't exist yesterday so already had no registrations, not allowing you to register a name tomorrow, it must be my problem and not one of chicken little's.
What is your problem? You couldn't have a domain name under .buy yesterday, you won't be able to get one tomorrow. What's the big difference? What's changed?
Now that Amazon has won, the competition is over, and the global Internet community can go broadly fuck themselves.
Yeah, because it isn't like anyone can go get a domain name in some other TLD and still have a viable and active web presence or anything. It's over. The Internet belongs to Jeff Bezos. Film at 11.
I would say that it might have been more productive to more fully quote me:
Just as you admit that controlling what other people do or think is seldom within one's ability, so is telling other people what points they should be making and how broadly they ought to discuss things.
My point is, and remains, that the concept of "actually fixing the problems of discrimination, abuse and violence" (the part I quoted) requires telling other people how to think and behave. It also requires a correct definition of "discrimination, abuse and violence", and one worker telling a blond joke within earshot of a woman just doesn't reach that level. Sending 50 people to a class to learn how not to "discriminate, abuse or be violent" when they aren't doing that to start with is still a waste of everyone's time. Sending them to a class to learn how not to violate some law that has ridiculous definitions of "discrimination, abuse and violence" is only slightly less a waste of time.
This is the key question, because unless Canaduh expects it's Netflix using citizens to pay a tax on each video they watch, it's really NONE of their business...
There are a large number of people in the US who care very much if the companies they deal with have corporate offices in the US so they will be paying US business taxes on money they make by selling things in the US. Burger King has a lot of people angry because it bought Tim Horton's and it was claimed that they were moving their corporate HQ to Canada to avoid US taxes. Several other companies are doing the same thing, and our President has said he's going to stop this if the congress doesn't.
So, perhaps, the Canadian government has a vested interest in knowing how may of Netflix' customers are in Canada so they know if Netflix is paying the right amount of Canadian taxes on the money they make from Canadian services?
Netflix is in the business of promoting what's good (and their own stuff...).
Netflix neither knows nor cares what is good or bad, they're in the business of selling people what people will pay to see.
If you want Canadians to consume canadian made stuff then just keep on making good stuff.
Those laws were created a long time ago when Canada was pushing back against the USification of broadcast television content. It has nothing to do with trying to force Canadians to consume Canadian made stuff.
I, for one, am glad those laws exist, because it promoted the creation of shows like SCTV (not the SCTV New York dreck) and "You Can't Do That On Television". Gosh I miss Moose. And even Barth.
In my experience, reasonable, decent people all agree that harassment and violence are inappropriate. The horrible things a small minority of people do should be roundly criticized and much more aggressively prosecuted.
Of course. This is obvious. Horrible things are bad. The problem comes in defining what is horrible.
If you think what someone is doing is horrible but they don't, then saying "you love doing horrible things" is a lie. They don't love doing horrible things and they aren't doing anything horrible -- in their definition of horrible. It is a complete waste of time to argue on that level. If the first statement out of your mouth when trying to get someone to change their behavior is obviously (to them) a lie, they have no reason to listen to anything else you say.
So, in this context, the question that includes "comments about physical beauty" and even "cognitive gender differences" in the category "sexual assault or harassment", and then reports that 71% of women report being sexually assaulted or harassed, is a dishonest question. I.e., a lie. Some percentage of those answering the question yes will have experienced the horrible and terrifying situation of a coworker telling them they're nicely dressed or wearing pretty earrings. Or they may have seen a copy of the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" on someone's desk. Or, if a man, they'll have looked inside any copy of Elle or Vogue or Cosmo.
It's a waste of energy that could be used in actually fixing the problems of discrimination, abuse and violence.
As one gets older, or if one obtains the help of any 12 step program, you learn that you have very little control over what other people do or think. Most of the efforts to fix these problems are a waste of energy. Sending 50 people to a workplace sexual harassment prevention seminar for the day will waste the time of all fifty people. It accomplishes two things: it satisfies legal requirements for such "training" to have been given, and it provides a better basis for firing someone who is actually causing a problem. Of course it doesn't look so good if the actual problem is counseled privately the first time and then fired the second, so 49 people have to be told not to do "horrible things" in the workplace when they are already not doing horrible things. But that seminar didn't fix anything.
I think it is safe to say: One in four Americans are either idiots or trolling. I could believe either or even both.
I love lying to survey takers. If someone wants to waste my time asking me stupid questions, I'll waste his with stupid answers.
I especially love lying to push-pollers. "Why yes, I do favor a candidate who eats babies and pours toxic chemicals down his toilet. What I can't stand are politicians who write federal legislation exempting politicians from the do-no-call list."
The dinky little roundabouts that you see in the US don't do much about that level of congestion.
That's because they aren't true roundabouts and aren't treated as such legally.
We had one in our town. I treated it as a roundabout. I got a ticket for failing to yield to someone who was waiting to enter from a street to my right. That's right -- traffic in the circle was expected to yield to traffic waiting to enter the circle.
Actually, as Americans we have many rights not enumerated in the constitution.
All of that being true, there is still no "right to know" when applied to "everything that everyone in the government knows". For example, there is no "right to know" that the ambassador from some certain country is a dick and the best way to deal with him is to scratch his back a lot before asking for anything. What do you learn from that, and what does it benefit you to know? On the other hand, the idea that he's a dick is really counterproductive to future negotiations but is good to know so those negotiations can be productive.
And that kind of information is some of the really secret stuff that we all had a "right to know" from the Wikileaks documents.
I would love a free market for broadband Internet. The big companies that offer broadband Internet, though, don't want one and will use all of their power and influence to keep one from emerging.
You're really trying to argue that government run competition is how you create a "free market"? Really?
It also destroys their argument that they can't provide good Internet in the US because of the low population density.
No, it just shows that when you remove the requirement for prices to cover costs and yield a profit, governments can do what private companies cannot. If the existing telecom could cover any operating losses by just dipping into the taxpayer general fund, you'd see prices go way down -- covered by taxes, of course.
And that is what makes government competing with existing private companies wrong. It isn't fair in any sense of the word, and the private companies, even if the courts say they are free to compete if they want to, have no way they'll make any return on their investment. I mean, existing markets are already defacto monopolies (not dejure) because even in major markets the density of consumers is too low to support two systems in direct head to head competition. If both TW and Comcast could make a profit operating in the same markets, they would. They'd both get franchises and both run physical plant and you'd have a choice.
Because, the yellow cake thing was a lie,
Those gullible Canadians, buying 550 metric tons of non-existant yellow cake.
there were no WMDs,
Ok.
and the country you did invade is falling into civil war.
That's what happens when you announce to the world the date that you're going to pull your troops out of a country where you're trying to help the government restore some semblance of order. All the opponents have to do is go into hiding, planning for the day when you leave. They have no reason to surrender if they know they're going to win on a certain preset day.
You do realize that "politically correct, professionally offended people" is a stereotype, right?
Actually, no it isn't. It is a description for a group of people that actually defines group membership.
A stereotype would be to say that liberals are all politically correct, professionally offended people. You see how that works? A group defined by some other property is claimed to have another potentially unrelated property assigned to it.
For another example, there is a group of people who play online or video games, called "gamers". To then say that "gamers are misogynists" would be stereotyping.
The historical record tells us the primary supporters of the separation of church and state were Protestant Christians. Why? Because they hated Catholics.
Hardly. It was because they saw what the Church of England had done to non COE people and wanted to prevent that here. They knew their history a lot better than you because it was much fresher in the memory of those who fled England to get away from it.
As long as you're only teaching the children your personal faith, it's not government respecting an "establishment" of religion.
Right. If you're only teaching children of your "personal faith" then you are running a private school, and private schools are not a government establishment of religion. Kinda like the Catholic schools that are also not a government establishment of religion.
Leaving it alone is accomplished through the demise of our decedents.....
No, "leaving it alone" is accomplished by doing nothing. Decedents will have nothing to do with it. How can they? They're already dead.
You claimed the OP was looking for the death of all humans. That's just false, and I corrected you on it. Leaving it alone means not forcing the system we don't fully understand to try to change to our whim, unlike those who would whip the waves to stop the tide.
Those who don't use the decades we have to adapt, well, they're standing on the shore whipping the waves or floating out to sea in the house they expected the government to protect. But to claim that expecting people to adapt is calling for the death of all humans is just patently absurd. Kind of like blaming something on the demise of decedents.
Read the parent.
I read the parent. He said that those who are around today won' t be around long enough to see the recovery. As in, the recovery will take longer than a human lifetime.
Also read you, where you changed that to "kill all the humans" and asked who would be around. I told you: anyone who isn't stupid enough to stand still and expect the government to solve their problems for them.
Ah, you one of those kill all the humans types: "just by leaving it alone and waiting long enough." So, who is going to do the waiting around?
All the people who are smart enough to move away from the coast when the sea level takes a couple of decades to rise based on the couple of decades it will take for Greenland to melt.
The ones who won't be waiting around are the ones who are washed out to sea while standing in their houses surrounded by the incoming tide wondering when the government is going to do something about this problem. I.e., the true Darwin Award winners.
Also, fun fact: the republicans opposed the creation of the US DoED as well. Apparently they were of the opinion that federal control of education is unconstitutional because federal control of education is not in the constitution...
FTFY. Maybe you don't realize that opposition to the creation of a federal government department to control something isn't defacto opposition to whatever that something is, so you make your flamebait accusation...
Natural selection means some get left behind. Humans work very hard to avoid that.
And you believe that none are? When did the death rate for those under 80 reach zero?
When you can read "work very hard at" and a later comment about there still being infant mortality, and come up with thinking that I said that nobody ever dies, well, I know you're not here to discuss this honestly.
Bye.
Last century, I worked for a magazine sales company that did telephone soliciting.
I'm fascinated by this concept of "magazine" to which you refer. Do you have a newsletter I might subscribe to that explains it in more detail?
Then I set the phone down and go about what I was doing.
In other words, you pay for a phone line that you can't use because the guy hung up thirty minutes ago and you haven't gotten back to hang yours up yet.
I'd be willing to bet that said data will show that the gross majority of accidents happen just after the driver takes control, and are a direct result of driver actions.
Just like the majority of aircraft incidents are caused by "pilot error" because, well, there was a pilot on board and he didn't stop whatever bad thing it was from happening. Autopilot went south, drove the elevator trim full nose up, and the pilot couldn't get the nose back down before the plane went into a stall/spin/crash/die? That was his error. Or he failed to cancel his flight because he didn't detect the problem before taking off. That's "pilot error", too, just worded as "improper preflight".
So from what you say, as a potential driver of an autonomous vehicle, whenever it barfs and tries to hand control over to me, I should refuse. Otherwise, when I can't fix whatever situation the car has gotten me into it will be my fault ("accidents happen just after the driver takes control"). To keep from being sued for the accident, I'll have to take the position that "hey, I was never in control, it was Google that failed, sue them."
Of COURSE a large number, even majority, of accidents in autonomous vehicles will happen "just after" the vehicle has bailed out on the driver and said "tag, you're it". Especially to those drivers who want to abandon their responsibility for their own safety and sleep instead of drive. "I said WAKE UP human, I can't deal with thi.... (sound of bending metal) oh never mind."
Because the cost to purchase a feature is not necessarily reflective of the cost to implement that feature. The difference between the two is called profit.
Which includes profit for lawyers, because you can take it as a fact that there will be lawsuits every time an autonomous vehicle kills or injures someone. That's a natural side-effect of outrageous promises that would be called "false advertising" were the same kind of claims applied to a toaster or television.