Let's go with that; that foreign profits are off limits. The US is still owed tax on domestic profits, fair?

There is a subtle bit in the article about those foreign profits being misrepresented to gain tax credits on domestic profits. Tax credits may be fair game (for whatever reason that congress decided), but misrepresentation isn't.

Don't worry, you aren't genX or Millennial. People have moved the goalpost over time. I'm a few years older and we never identified with genX either. You came of age before the millenium, and you remember life before the Internet. But, you probably did play Oregon trail on an Apple IIe.

Who certified this car as level 5, and what operating area / conditions is that good for?

It's extremely predictable, and doesn't even require a security hole: "You want to see this website? you need to say 'yes' to allow filesystem access."

Kinda like how every trivial mobile app needs access to my camera, microphone, and storage for no operational reason. And if they do actually have secondary functions that make use of those permissions, they still refuse to operate in a reduced mode.

Or how websites require me to disable my ad-blocker, knowing that in this era that will likely open up users to a variety of malicious ad placements.

Exactly this! I don't know when this became the norm that apps can steal focus, but it needs to stop, especially if I'm in the middle of typing. Why can't Microsoft understand this issue?

I'd be terrified of the cat that can take down a Condor.

Exactly, it seems that people want to keep moving the semantic naming goalpost. That seems opposite of what we should do; we should keep naming consistant. If we pulled anyone out of the 1950's and showed them just about any programming language or processor, they would call it AI: an "electronic brain, made of modern materials and capable of automatically making decisions."
If people today specifically feel that AI should only refer to neural networks, or some hard-to-define future goal, that leaves out a huge history and potential future of AI.

Do you just prefer the volatile odor of whiteboard markers? I gave that up years ago. In fact, whiteboards here in my office currently have irrelevant scribbles from 2 years ago; nobody has bothered to wipe them down. Skype does just fine, even literally in the same office.

And this is the problem I see all too often with people troubleshooting anything, not just medical conditions.
People jump to 'the most likely case' and start working a solution rather than eliminating possibilities. That works quickly for the easy cases that do fit the expectation.
  But when that solution doesn't work, they repeat... over and over. They get more confused, pass the problem to someone else who repeat the same unproductive approach again and again.
You can learn a lot by objectively observing and characterizing the failure rather than trying to force it down a decision tree immediately. There is, of course, a time limit to everything; a doctor or pilot may need to take more immediate actions. But it is usually more time-consuming to go down the wrong solution path in those odd cases when something doesn't fit the highest probability.

Which issue exactly? yeah, of course every suspect claims innocence and they are usually lying. Of course that is exhausting for law enforcement officers and rehab counselors. So let's just dispense with the pretense of "innocent until proven guilty' if we just plan on dealing with suspects statistically based on the fact that they 'are usually guilty and lying about their innocence.' Justice requires some measure of open mindedness to a defendant's claims.

Maybe he also had a terrible lawyer. You'd think DUI attorneys would be aware of this and at least consider this possibility with all of their clients.

History is rife with cases of people who were discovered to be innocent once there was a sufficient technology to prove it.

Came here for this comment... Same here: I'm not a medical professional, and I know this already. And in the age of the internet isn't this just common knowledge? What other things are cops and doctors supposed to know but yet would miss so persistently?
I get it that a cop would take him in for DUI the first time (and probably should get him off the street at that moment, BAC is affecting his driving regardless), but what is it about our system that a reasonable plea to law enforcement AND medical professionals (who should know about this) would go ignored? How broken are we?

I agree in principle that they are optimizing for whole-sentences for the sake of their audience, I'm hard pressed to say that it gives me better results compared to Google of 10 years ago. (Yes, I try both approaches.) The natural-language approach is often too vague or exclusionary to give good results on technical issues. (maybe 50% of the time I give up and try Yahoo/Bing. [gasp] any other suggestions welcome.)
Also, the web just sucks in general now too. There is very little content that is free and worthwhile. Everything is paywalled, commerce-driven, or completely infested with ad-malware. Not to cast any blame, just a natural and expected progression from the days of people pouring their time and money into the web for free.
It is utter laziness that we don't use other search engines, its not like there is any real lock-in to Google (for this purpose, at least.)

I'm not sure how this proves the author of the above comment is bad at searching. If they are entering a highly technical phrase that is well recognized by a particular industry and it gets automatically and uncontrollably substituted with terms that are more friendly to e-commerce / advertisers, then what is that person 'bad' at? Guessing what Google is going to do behind the scenes?
What if I did want the alternate form of gimp training? If there are two equally valid uses of a phrase, and it is reasonably ambiguous, why can't Google inform me of that? Will I melt if I glimpse the 'wrong' thing occasionally? That happens regardless to some of us who are a bit lower on the 'knowledge of urban expressions' curve.

Based on recent experiences, it will probably top the list with: "Buy error now on amazon!"
I kid you not, I have seen so many grossly illogical things it says it will sell me based on search terms entered into Google.

I would normally support the tailgater-at-fault argument. Particularly when people use the argument that red-light cameras cause rear-end crashes. However, in this case it may not be a simple rear-end at stake.
Instead substitute "auto-braking" with the phrase: "engine stall", and now you can start to imagine more critical moments in driving where a collision would be unavoidable such as pulling onto a main road, turning across traffic, etc.
My personal experience is that the Honda Odyssey with driver assist will stop if you cross into a cross-hatched area prior to a left-turn lane (in the US) without using your turn-signal. (Yeah, probably not good driving form and not a huge risk since it is before the intersection, but it caught me by surprise.) On a different topic, it also constantly fights me telling me I'm not 'steering enough' so that gets exhausting getting 'wiggled' all the time. Maybe most people jerk the wheel a lot more than I do, I dunno. Also, if trying to bias slightly out of lane to give room to a bike or pedestrian, the lane assistance may fight you a bit (I guess that is the point, but I wouldn't want it to plow into someone.)