Quite often looks just like it though. Like, just like it. "From the river to the sea", "by all means necessary", etc. That's like the Hamas theme music. And if you're humming Hamas happy tunes, you're supporting Hamas and their methods. Further, support for Hamas remains widespread in all available polling in Gaza. So a lot of them are on board with the genocidal terrorists running their government and all their actions as well. Supporting them is also supporting Hamas.

False equivalence in the extreme. Israel attacks valid military targets, even when fighting terrorists who don't follow Geneva or any other convention on war. Israel goes above and beyond by broadcasting where and when they're going to strike so civilians can leave. Except Hamas often doesn't let them leave because as Hamas themselves have stated in television interviews: dead Palestinian women and children help their cause and they aim to maximize the dead civilians on their side. Meanwhile, you've got Hamas specifically targeting women and children for rape and murder and live-streaming the whole thing to the world.

So no, they aren't the same. And it would take one ignorant motherfucker to think they are.

Are we going to dock its pay? I mean, I've been expecting regular TPS reports and it hasn't delivered. It needs to be put on a performance review plan ASAP.

The issue isn't that solar isn't the solution to energy needs --if anything things issue shows that solar can generate enough power in a distributed manner to solve everyone's energy need. The problem is the way in which the transition is taking place and the need to pay fixed cost of the utility companies that are too big to fail. This "hostage crisis" is more reason to double down on solar, than have to keep paying the extortionist power companies.

False.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/1....

1. How could it deliver to anyplace that isn't a wide open yard?

* Mostly rural and suburban deliveries won't have this problem. If it can't deliver then it will swtich to some other delivery method.

2. What happens when it crashes? Especially if it damages property or injures someone.

* Uh, some sort of liability insurance payout. What happens when there's a car accident?

3. What happens when kids think its fun/funny to throw things at them?

* This hasn't happened in testing so far, so presumably it would be rare. Plus the drones have cameras, so it might be a free trip to the juvie.

4. How could it deliver to anyone beyond street level?

* Apartment complexes could have a drone delivery station.

5. This would have severe weight restrictions and not be useful for a large % of items.

* Yes. So? Presumably Amazon has the statistics on that.

6. This would have issues delivering in a variety of weather/wind conditions.

* False (unless it's a hurricane or something in which case the delivery can wait). https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

7. Thieves would eventually target these for what they carry as well as the drones themselves.

* Only if they want to make the list of dumbest thieves.

8. Customers don't want their good delivered to the middle of their yard. They want them discretely placed by a door.

* Umm, where a porch pirate can grab it?

9. Urban areas are too dense for these and most rural areas are too far apart.

* Maybe it's not suitable for urban (yet), But it would definitely work in suburbs and rural, especially the drones that delivery by reeling down the package on a tether from hundreds of feet thereby mitigating nay noice issues.

Try uploading the API spec to claude.ai (or other AI you like) and asking it to do that .. at worst I think it will give you detailed instructions or code to do that (if you ask for it).

What's an OS? A kernel and a set of utilities that ship with it, right? The kernel is only one piece of it, like the engine is to a car. You have a set of components in it that enable software to run.

For not calling them flying cars. 90% of eVTOL concepts are not flying cars, yet "journalists" insist on calling them that.

I do. People in Dubai live 15 to 25C higher than the global mean surface temperature (15C) and they're alive aren't they? Hm...

Of course it's accurate. It serves as a template so I don't miss things .. for example to include examples. To mention things I might normally forget to say. It writes out the sentences .. if I disagree I won't put it. Declining to write a letter because of my own schedule, or writing a shitty one because of my own forgetfulness or shortcomings is not an excuse to screw someone else out of something they've worked for and deserve.

And whoops this comment was on the wrong article mod down off-topic if you have mods to blow..

Sorry I was incorrect about losing land mass, it looks like we'd actually gain overall land mass (antarctica).

If the Earth warms up say 10 degrees .. we won't go extinct from it. Sure, we'd lose a lot of land mass to the ocean and the Earth will look weird, reference: https://images.fineartamerica.... But our species, as toolmakers and builders, can survive in any temperature .. we have AC. We have solar power, we have nuclear power. We're not going extinct from climate change. At least not directly. However, humans may go extinct from them killing each other --and that can happen at any temperature. It only didnt happen in the 1940s because neither side had nukes. As a species we can't get along, for whatever reason. We have tribalist tendencies. For ease of solving situations, we willifully zero-out our ability to see individual based characteristics and only classify people according stereotypes (true of false) of tribal membership. That was fine when it was possible to fight or run away from each other without mass-casualties and all you had to do choose a place to hide, wait things out, or stay out of rock-throwing range. Now, with the weapon we have .. we can't hide or run in a large-scale war between great powers.

With or without government legislature/mandate?

How many pedestrian, passenger, and innocent driver deaths is that worth? I thought the laws have to try to protect as many innocent people as possible. Btw, if a situation is a reasonably unforeseen accident (such as a meteorite striking the car) then it's deemed an accident and nobody can be sued. For example, before it was known seat belts could prevent accidents you couldn't sue a company for injuries caused by a car not being equipped with seatbelts. A company can only be expected to take reasonable precautions as understood by the technology and expertise of the time. If there's a situation a self driving car doesn't know how to handle .. because it's pretty unusual .. then you can't hold the company liable -- nor should you be able to. If you could, then self-driving tech will never develop and we'll have to tolerate 40,000 people dying annually just in the USA (and countless other severely injured/maimed). We should do whatever it takes to reduce that number even if all we can get it down to is 39,999.