> but legal liability doesn't work on statistics

That is where you are off. Strict liability for damages is already taken care of; IE your required to carry insurance the auto car has a video log; look at the video use existing laws to say who screwed up at what percent then that insurance pays actual damages.

And as Warren Buffet famously said; autonomy will kill the insurance companies as the big $$$ accidents go to zero; the big profit policy providing 500k with of coverage goes away.

The statistics is what saves the Autonomy car from the big $$$ punitive suits. They big company just have to show data that they are safer overall; and that know them not programing in some obscure scenario is not causing extra deaths. Instead this is what will kill manned cars, manufacture sells a car without the ability to be as safe as an auto car will be sued out of business. They either have to program in ways to make the manned car as safe and as reliable as the auto car; which will be much more expensive than the auto cars as it will then requires more systems to allow dual controls; not less.

That is where I predict the end of big automakers selling manned cars.

Ha ha. Comcast did this battle before, it is all backroom deals and lies. They started demanding money from Netflix, then used traffic shaping to duck with their mutual customers. Their support calls would blame the customers network/laptop and charged them. They started their own video competitor and pushed the complainers to pay for that. When authorities got involved they blamed Netflix's network. After Netflix payed up, we learned Netflix had high speed to the ISP, that Comcast allowed on their side until Netflix payed up. They will never give a clear cut reason to get a local authority involved, and the FCC is stepping out of the enforcement.

I see a re-occuring theme. Scientists are not predicting the end of the world in 7 years, only denialist are making the claim that scientists are saying it, to mock them. Same as your claim in the 80's no scientists were claiming an ice-age, only denialist claims were bringing up a paper withdrawn in 74 (in the early 70's their were a very few scientists with concerns about the level of soot and carbon pollution, but thankfully action has largely revesed that scenario.)

No one who honestly observes how well the scientific process works, like that is what brought us Nuclear, computers, satellites, GPS... Then thinks they can spend 5 minute dragging up one or two observations and dismiss the consensus of now thousands of man years of scientific study, is just not being genuine.

> Tesla's capabilities are just a little bit better than other manufacturers

Based on? according to AAA Cars with high-tech safety systems are still really bad at not running people over The Tesla Model 3 seamed to be behind all the other manufactures, Along with the Chevy, it most often didn't even slow before running over pedestrian dummies, while Toyota and Honda slowed significantly. But Chevy outperformed in other tests, where as Tesla was always worst or next to worst.

It appears; Tesla is just the biggest risk taker, putting more risky tech in the hands of car owners.

Their is a-lot of shade between what we know amazon and google are doing (always listing on millions of device for a single phrase) and what we know they are not doing (profiling every product mentioned around all of these devices.)

Where is that cutoff in what is possible today? It would be possible, for example, that google could profile just 1% of their devices as high value users, and thus be looking at a custom 10 keywords each day only targeting key products around only that small demographic. So this study might have only triggered on devices as specific as people who own their houses and also only during a month when google signed a new advertisement contract with Blue buffalo.

Personally I think it is more interesting to talk about what would be over the line, and how to detect or prevent it. rather than what is possible today.

> Did he do that? He told them to go back to where they came from, but that could mean returning home rather than remaining in Government.

FYI, Trump clarified what he meant on twitter.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1150381394234941448/

originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe.

Or I guess by using the present tense for those countries governments, he could be acknowledging the complete and total catastrophe the current US government has became under him. Since all are citizens of the US, and 2 of 3 were born here.
Or is it more likely he is just being racist again and assuming since they don't look like the Americans he wants here, they must not be.

> , it makes more sense to just make a wholesale move over to electric motors.

No one alive today will ever see a battery powered supersonic passenger jet that can cross the Atlantic. That is in this article. If you think the world will go oil free in 40 years, you either stop developing things like space craft, jets... or look to other ways to produce a fuel equivalent from renewable sources.

Most strip mines fill mining equipment with 100 GPM fuel pumps, when do you think we will see a 270 MW charger that a single person can plugin safely? Let alone a mobile battery that can be charged at that rate.

You seam to make the world out to be very black and white. For example, I am not currently married because I found out my now ex was trying to cheat on me. So yes I have insecurities, yes I have been to a therapist, she says it is normal, you have to work through them, and they will last for your life, even when under control. Similar with things like ED, race insecurities, dick/breast size insecurities... And that this is likely not a one on one finding, it is likely a black mailer introducing you, your friends, work... So if your boss pulls you into his office and shows your wife getting plowed and screaming like no other with 2 different guys 12" BBC in each hand. Would you be able to see that at a low point in your life and ever forget it, even if you knew it existed? especially when many women have lost jobs, mostly in religious related positions. But a spouse lousing a job ends many relationships, let alone if everytime you get a passed due bill it is because of your wife's history.
Of course over decades you get a image of the person you are with, a stark image that she wasn't always that person may not be something over time that some people just could get over.

I think in my current relationship knowing she had sex with others, is not a deal. But I don't think I could get over seeing it, or knowing my family or friends had. Just would not be something I could endure at this time, with my history and trust issues. Of course if I am ever at the stage to get married, I assume that would be in a strong enough bond to get passed it. But it would almost certainly end things for me and her today.

Over 1/4 of total household power use in AZ is Airconditioning, during the day that is obviously most of the household use. Guess what is not needed after a tropical storm with cloud cover? It also helps the wind and hydro power will then be driven up to take over any excess. Also cloud cover doesn't end solar, still get 25% of the capacity, so when daytime demand is cut in half you will still have 1/4 of the solar power, so not that much makeup would be needed if PV was providing half the power, all is still good.

Keep in mind, apple got law enforcement requests for data from 500,000 devices just last year, even without the ability to get into many of their devices. And would then have to keep track of, and keep secure the device keys for the 200 million iphones it sells each year.

The more access they have, you would then expect even more requests.

> They can't have the authority in one case and not have it in another.

Not sure that it is true that they cannot claim both sides in separate cases, especially since at this point it is just a legal statement by their lawyers. Will California also be disposed to choose a single side of this argument for both cases?

It could be a smart legal move by the FCC, use the civil case to get the states to defend the FCC's legal authority, but the FCC could still win the civil case based on other claims. Thus make it more difficult for the states to dispute the FCC authority in the other case. Of course politically I think this is a loser for the FCC, but they don't seam to care about that.

Not sure they are years ahead on anything but possibly charge station network. While their competitors are decades ahead in things like dealer support, parts delivery, build quality, and most importantly paying down their debts. Their are many companies with decades of more experience on mass producing electric drive trains over Tesla. Panasonic is the primary holder of the battery technology, and manufacturing even at the Giga factory.

Personally their is no way I would consider a car that is locked down in DRM, from a company that maintains a list of VIN's that they will not sell parts for. Also no service or repair manuals, and so far demonstrated an inability to deliver repair parts at any scale. Especially one that is so deep in debt and tied up in a couple car models, one big recall and they are bankrupt.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying short Tesla or anything close to predicting they will fail. Just that while I clearly have no idea how much of the population is like me, that would gladly pay $10k more for the support of BMW over the restrictions of Tesla. And they are just one mistake away from turning over their market lead to any one of nearly a dozen competitors.

I think you too need the NAL disclaimer, because that the 5th amendment prevents you from having to provide a password. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

The earlier 2010 case was not the Supreme court, and in that case where no self incriminating evidence, could someone be forced to re-provide access to data (ie to persue others.)

So their is only a pretty narrow case law on if this is legal. It isn't well decided like you claim, and unless you can provide a Supreme Court case, as of 2012 the law is still upheld that with a lack of a Supreme court case it still case law that the 5th amendment still protects you from having to supply a password that could be self incriminating.

And no, I am not a lawyer either.

> is that a system can be scientifically proven to make driving 30% to 40% safer and the headline and most of the story is apparently about the downside risks rather than the opportunity

No, I think the story is more about how people think these systems replace the need for them to be as aware. IE my car will stop for me, so I can now text and drive. Or watch that viral video; or drive while tired or drunk in the rain. Or drive faster even when my vision is obscured. IE if I trust the system to save me, and then take more risks that more than wipe out the safety benefits.

You are correct about having the systems do more, the question is if the system cannot mitigate the risks of accidents that are not the drivers fault (IE slow down further back than necessary to avoid being rear ended if the car in front doesn't move as expected) Should it be advertised as preventing collisions when so many people won't understand this isn't a license to completely leave the driving to the semi-autonomy when convenient.

> I have a hard time believing that partial automation isn't a net win.

It is,if it doesn't alter the drivers behavior. For example my brother has lane assist, auto braking, adaptive cruise; now because his vehicle is safer he thinks it is ok to have one more beer, and work or party an hour or 2 later as his car has always saved him from any minor accidents. He paid the extra $10k for a lifestyle change, not because he cared for the extra safety feature.

If the driver is drunk, texting on the phone, or watching a movie; the partial autonomy clearly will make them safer than doing the same without the feature. But it isn't going to make them safer, than if they only drove when they could pay 100% attention to driving. Especially since they are sharing the road with people without these features. So if my brother isn't paying attention and not slowing and his system has to slam on the brakes suddenly, instead of a more gradual, or a lane change; the cars behind have to react faster as well.