A big part of spend money represents used energy - mining of resources, refining those resources, making whatever thing I am buying etc. And a lot of things we spend money (and energy) are not strictly necessary. However, there are probably some things that you approve of and consider to be OK, but not others.

Let's say I installed solar panels on my house and now have "free" power when the sun is shining. Am I allowed to use it however I want, say, by running an inefficient light bulb or some other device that does not have the best efficiency?
You could say that if I did not use the energy, then, assuming my solar power is connected to the grid, others could use it, but at the same time, if I was not planning on using it I would not have installed (as many) panels.

If I said that I have a good gaming PC that uses, say, 500W and use it to play games 4 hours per day (using 2kWh per day on games), would you approve of it? But what if I do not have a gaming PC and instead use the same 2kWh on incandescent lightbulbs or a vacuum tube radio? Would you disapprove now even if it is the same amount of energy used "for fun"?

Similar with a car? It uses however much fuel it uses, but should I have to submit a trip plan to the government for approval? After all, I may be just going for a drive or going to some place where I do not strictly need to. Should I be able to get an exception based on the low total amount of kilometers traveled and fuel burned?

Why is it a problem? I pay for the electricity. Then, either I use the roasted beans to make myself some coffee (in which case I just waste my own money, no different that any other way of wasting money) or I sell them. If I sell them then I will be asking for a lot of money for them. Other companies that use more efficient equipment will be able to sell the same roasted beans for much lower price and I'll go out of business or will have to get better equipment to be able to compete with them.

As long as that rule exists, people are going to behave this way. Also, I doubt that such rule is going away any time soon, simply because otherwise the government (or even large companies) would stop working.

I am not a lawyer, but, as I understand, the police needs a court order to be able to conduct a search of someones home etc. You cannot fault a police officer who does the search while having a court order that looks legitimate (the signature does not look obviously fake etc, since you cannot expect every cop to be a handwriting expert).

Any large organization (the government, the military, large companies) depends on dividing responsibilities, because it is not possible (or even right) to expect every employee to be responsible for the actions of every other employee and even to double or triple check what his superiors (or specialists) told him. If an engineer said to use bolt size x for the construction and it turns out that the bolt is too small and the building collapses, it's the fault of the engineer, not the builder who worked according to the specifications.

It's not about the intelligence (or lack of it) of the people involved. It's about responsibility.
"The Computer Said" - I am not responsible for this - whoever put in the wrong data into the computer or programmed it is responsible, I followed the prescribed procedure, so I cannot be held responsible.
"I verified what The Computer Said" - I am responsible for this, after all, I did not believe The Computer and double checked it, so now it's on me.

Bitcoin is mined on ASICs - chips that can do SHA256 really efficiently but nothing else.

I hope that you (or I) never have to find out, but people seem to be able to adapt to their limits - be it a disability or being in prison.

That man started living in the iron lung when he was 6, so this is the life he knew and got used to. As I understand, he did not want to die and it seems that he managed to accomplish some things (like getting a law degree and practice law) that would seem pointless and difficult considering the condition he was in - the difficulty to write things down or read books for example - it's not like he had computers at the time, always depending on assistants.

Stephen Hawking is another example - I can't imagine how awful it must have been to be completely paralyzed and I hope to never find out, but it seems that he did not want to die either and managed to live a productive life.

It sounds like the problem is not as much with black vs white people, but more with poor vs rich people.

I'm sure that poor white people have the same problems as poor black people (due to being poor - worse schools, parents without higher education etc).
Why the focus on race then? Make it possible for poor people to get into college (or whatever) no matter their race, right?

Or is there some reason that black people are worse than white people despite both having the same (very low) income?

Can they go away faster?

Of course EU is going to fine them over and over, hopefully the fines would be increasing as well. As long as they break the EU law over and over, they should be fined over and over until breaking the law stops being profitable.

Not exactly. Bus leaves at, say, 09:15, 09:30 etc. If I get to the bus stop at 09:16, I have to wait 14 minutes until the next bus.
On the other hand, I can leave in my car whenever I want. Let's say I should leave at 09:15 to not be late, but if I'm delayed, I can leave at 09:16 and only be a little late (or I get lucky and am not late), not 14 minutes late.

I just used this as an example. I can drive pretty much anywhere - as long as there is some road. Public transport only goes to some places. It may be possible to reach some (not all) other places by getting out of one bus and into another. Invariably this takes much longer than just driving there.

I prefer using speakers. Headphones also suck if it's hot outside and I don't think they will allow me to set the AC to maximum power on a bus (assuming the bus has AC).

Listening to music - not necessarily very loud, but still loud enough to hear it normally in my car does not bother other people. Doing it in a bus or train does.

Not where I live. In some cases it may be faster, but car is more comfortable. So, it's a tradeoff. Also, usually when I go long distance (to another city etc), I am carrying a bunch of stuff. Be it going on vacation or going for work.

It's good if the shops are close together, but what if they are, say, 3km or more apart?

While having an umbrella obviously helps it 1) is not as convenient as sitting in a car with a roof 2) one more thing to carry and when it's wet I can't really put it in my pocket.
As for heat, well, I really dislike heat and while yes, I CAN endure it, a car with an AC (or at least a fan and windows I can open, especially when driving on a highway) is more comfortable.

And that's my point. A car, for me, is better, because it is more comfortable and more convenient, even if it is more expensive and in some cases a bit slower. Could I use public transport for some of my trips? Yes. Do I want to? No.

If it works properly and is not abused (bad social credit - your car won't drive you to some location) it may be good. As long as I can drive my non-computerized car I do not really care what others drive.

Right now, you need one person per car and the person needs to follow your orders.

On the other hand, hacking a million cars and causing them to hit walls/trees/lamp posts/other cars/people at maximum speeds could be a good way of causing a lot of damage. Depending on how many people were in those cars, it would be possible to cause a lot of deaths and injuries.

This is why I would not use the features, not even cruise control (my car doesn't have it, but I have driven ones that do).

When I am driving, I have to constantly adjust the direction (no road is perfectly straight) and speed (no road is perfectly level) in addition to looking out for other cars etc. This creates enough "load" to prevent me from daydreaming and losing attention completely. If the self-drive feature worked well the vast majority of the time, when it failed, my reaction time would be something like 5 seconds or longer, because I would be thinking about something completely unrelated for the last hour. Especially, since, you know, I would be expecting the computer for fix whatever problem ("I think we are coming too close to the stopped car in front of us, I guess the computer will step on the brakes any time now.... now?... oh crap I need to step on the brakes").

And this is why you keep a safe distance from the car in front of you. Safe distance here depends on the speed you're going, so that if the car in front of you starts decelerating suddenly, you can stop in time and not hit it.

Awesome, now, how to prevent anyone from sending a fake signal that causes everyone on the highway to stop.

Though I guess such an emergency stop feature (as long as it cannot be abused by hackers of the government) would be useful. My car does not have computers, so whatever, I'll just have to keep my distance from the car in front of me.

If traffic is expected, I leave a bit earlier.

I don't drink alcohol, so, not a problem for me.

The way I see the problems with public transport:
1. It does not go to a lot of places. I can take a map, randomly mark a spot on some random street and in the vast majority of cases I can drive there (the cases where I would not be able to drive there would be if the place was on private property or otherwise restricted access, like a military base). No matter how good a bus or train service is, it won't go to a lot of places, only the more popular ones. The only alternative to a personal car here is a taxi.
2. It may not run at night, weekends or other "unusual" times. I can get in my car and drive anywhere I want at any time I want, be it 13:00 or 02:30. A taxi can help here, but only sometimes, for example, it is really difficult to get a taxi on New Year.
3. I can keep my things in the trunk of my car and they are relatively safe. Even if it takes multiple trips from my home to my car to get everything I can do it. No way to ask the bus driver to wait while I go home to pick another suitcase or whatever. Also, I may put everything in my car at home and then unload some things in one place and other things in another. This also works in reverse. I can drive to multiple shops, buy stuff in each, put it in the trunk and bring everything home on the same trip.
4. When I am driving my car, I can set the heat or AC as I want (I prefer colder temperatures than most other people in my country), turn the fan on if I need to. Oh, and I can listen to whatever music I want, however loud I want. I don't think bringing a boombox on a bus or train would be appropriate.
5. When I'm in my car, I am either alone or with people I know. I can be sitting the whole trip (it's rare for a seat in a bus to be empty), I do not need to be with other people (whom I don't know) and other people do not need to be with me.
6. I can go from my house to my car in a minute. A bus stop is further away and if the weather sucks (too cold, too hot, rain) I have to walk in that weather and then wait for the bus in that weather.

So, even if it took me longer to drive my car to the destination compared to public transport I would still drive.

I have an old car, but it already has this implemented. If I press the brake pedal even slightly, two light bulbs at the back turn on, informing the driver behind me that I am pressing the brake pedal.