...and a steady hand.

I love the fact that it applies to any content that even _mentions_ a political candidate. Personally, I'm just going to start putting "AOC" at the bottom of every single post. Then it'll be illegal for anyone to moderate me at all.

Heh. So they go to all the trouble to pass this bill, and Facebook and Twitter just buy a minor roadside attraction in the swamp somewhere, and now they "operate a theme park" and are immune. Well done Florida Man.

Well but that was kind of my point, though perhaps I didn't make it very well; the thing they describe makes no sense. So of course anything sensible involves talking about another thing entirely. "What if we built a rocket to get to the moon, instead of flapping our arms really hard?" "Oh sure, if you want to talk about a different thing entirely..." The only thing the billboard adds to this equation (that I can see) is anchoring your ads to a specific geographical location - so not just selling Andersons Pea Soup, but selling Andersons Pea Soup 5 miles before the exit to Andersons Pea Soup Restaurant. Otherwise its literally just an ad in a car, chosen by a random number generator that happens to use a camera for it's seed. But if the point is to anchor advertisements to a specific geographic location, in the modern world where literally every new car knows its GPS location at all times, pointing a camera at billboards just takes control of which advertising is linked to which location, and needlessly hands it over to a third party (the billboard company.) Why on earth would Ford want to do that, when they could control it themselves and sell the adspace? To put it another way: a system that shows you an ad for the same thing as any billboard you point it at, is... a camera. With a screen. Well done.

Why would you care where the billboards are? Just sell location-specific ads based on where the car is, and obsolete the entire idea of billboards.

... is going to look out the window to decide which geography-based advertising to send you. Because _that_ is an efficient method of associating advertising with geography. Sure. While it's at it, it could look at the stars, determine the date, and use that to send you ads for Halloween decorations in October.

Filming _anyone_ committing a crime is a good start towards accountability, but it's only a start. If officers committing egregious assault are filmed and then not fired and convicted then no, filming the police did not lead to more accountability.

In other news... Huawei announces sale of it's chip manufacture division to Huaweier Inc.

I don't care how they drive around selfish people, I just want to know how they respond to the Trolley Problem.

"For example, knowing that A students spend a certain number of hours in the library every week -- and eventually communicating that to students -- might motivate them to study there more often."

And thereby ruin the quiet place that your A students were using to hide from their classmates so they could get some work done. Well done!

Getting your failing students to be in the same physical locations as your successful ones is a laughably simplistic model for improving their study habits.

It didn't make _no_ difference; it presumable qunitupled their expenses...

"younger people are far more likely to engage in risky behavior like sharing their passwords to streaming services. The presumption that older workers pose more of a risk than younger workers is an example of so-called "aggregate bias," in which subjects make inferences about an individual based on a population trend."

Look, both confirmation bias and aggregate bias are real things, but you can't just throw the terms into a discussion anywhere and see if they stick. You've just said that studies have found that younger people are more prone to risky behavior. If I assume that that's true (I believe it, but you didn't give me any supporting evidence) then this is the exact opposite of aggregate bias - subjects are making inferences based upon their preconceived notions, in direct contradiction of population trends (which are that it should be younger people who are riskier.) It would be aggregate bias if, knowing what we now know, we assumed the guilt of specific young people based on the results of these studies you're telling us about.

And it's only confirmation bias if the people getting it wrong are supporting their position by picking and choosing data points where older people have risky behavior, and ignoring data where older people are secure and younger people are risky. Since you never say anything about any specific evidence gathering at all, it's not confirmation bias either. It's just ignoring all the evidence and making up the answer that you already believe; that's not confirmation bias, that's "lying".

Study Funded and Performed by Major Graphics Card Manufacturer Finds You Should Buy A New More-Expensive Graphics Card.

Yeah, that's definitely shocking.

"Only 12% percent responded that their organizations have a high level of competency with agile practices across the organization, and only 4% report that agile practices are enabling greater adaptability to market conditions.."

Look hi. I'm not going to comment about whether the Latest Greatest Fully-Buzzword-Compliant Management Trend is actually backed by reproduceable research or anything. I'm just going to comment about maths. If 12% of your respondents report a high level of competency in a system, and 4% report that that system is actually doing any good whatsoever... If we assume roughly equal levels of response to both questions then we have a system that, when implemented at "a high level of competency" self-reports that system as having a positive effect roughly 1 time in 3. Random chance should have a positive effect 1 time in 2. And self-reported success rates run notoriously high...

You know they're talking about Apple, right? The company whose mission statement is essentially "make stuff for people to stare at while walking instead of paying attention to their surroundings"?