Should all Locks have Keys and I, Phone. From the first "No matter how much we might wish it, there is no way to build a digital lock that only Angels can open, and Demons cannot."

As bad as the USA has it politically, economically all the measures up here are worse. Housing costs, health care (free access to a waiting list is not health care), income (median is 3/4 of the USA IIRC), and a number of other measures, it's just worse up here. I think our crime is lower, though that's going in the wrong direction too. Canada doesn't have some of the same problems as the USA, but it's debatable if all-in it's worse or not. For single-issue things, sure, there's places Canada is better at, but overall? Harder, and trending negatively for Canada IMO.

I don't know how the ESA did the whole metric/standard conversion, but it's about 7 foot at the shoulder, not 7m. So that's how they got there.

To me it's a decision between having all those bad effects somewhere else where they are certain to never be addressed, versus having it beside you, where at least public pressure has some role in government. If people want the products, they should also deal with the consequences of producing those products. Putting them abroad just shifts the consequences to somebody else, it doesn't mitigate it. Producing it in a 1st-world country isn't perfect (as per your cited family issues), but it's at least got a chance of being done well (environment, good working conditions, etc), versus it definitely will not be.

Remember, no bias! Especially not based on merit. That would lead to horrifically "bad" results.

Yes we are all forced to work for what we have (except inheritance) instead of having others provide it for us. Why are they providing us with things? Either because they're getting paid, or they'll be punished (imprisoned, shot, whatever) if they don't. Or they don't get provided for if they don't. And so why would you not be working as well? Somebody has to do the actual thing. Or a class of somebodies. Even if you raid the rich, the treasure runs out eventually. Or as the great "evil" (or whatever other label you have for her) Margaret Thatcher said "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Ya but on a societal level, it might still work out.

For example, if you had say 5 million driverless cars, and 5 million human-driven cars, which cohort will produce less accidents? And not 5 million "not drunk, trained to X degree, etc," ALL of them. Because that's real life: you have to have the "crap" in the mix too, because that's what you're displacing.

Every driverless car is displacing a human driver, so if 5 percent of those drivers are abominable, and 90 percent are OK, and 5 percent exceptional (I believe the real numbers are much worse btw), and the driverless is just barely worse than OK, will displacing the 5 abominable percent save lives? Should we have to wait for it to be better than the 90 percent before its deployed, if it's already better than the 5 percent terrible? Just because those 5 percent terrible are gone will mean less accidents for everybody, and thus safer.

It's not ridiculous that the math may work out. And it'll get even better over time.

All of the energy produced by burning fuel will need to be replaced by the electric grid infrastructure. Petrochemicals are very energy dense, that's why they're used. Has there been a corresponding ramp-up of the electric grid overall capacity? No there hasn't. And this is ALWAYS capacity, not when the sun shines and the wind blows, because that's not actual capacity. What's the base load? That's the real number.

Now the internet providers in South Korea will learn (to their detriment) how large Transit Fees can get. Should have been happier providing Twitch the bandwidth. Transit companies usually aren't too reasonable.

ISPs base their entire business on the idea that consumers won't actually use the bandwidth they're contracted to get. They try and pass it on to the business customers. When this runs into problems, you see crap like this.

Exactly. This was yet another case of executive branch saying "hey, we have a power like this somewhere, let's apply it to other things!" instead of, you know, PASSING LAWS. That's more-or-less what the court said: regulate whatever, but you need a law to do this one, not just changing what's on a list.

Because a law regulating this thing, you know, that's such an outdated concept. Just govern by executive fiat! What could possibly go wrong? (Applies to both "sides" you have down there, not good no matter who's doing it)