Not a lot of human drivers who remain undistracted for any length of time these days. All I see are phones and makeup and touchscreens and eyes everywhere but on the road and immediate surroundings. Would a human driver in place of AI have avoided this accident? I give it 1 chance in 20. Would a human driver in place of AI have panic-pushed the accelerator when they saw a human being thrown at them, thereby causing significantly worse injuries to the pedestrian? I give that 1 in 2.

The pedestrian has about 1000% better odds of surviving this with the AI driver.

A human WAS in the other car and not only FAILED to anticipate the need to stop for the jaywalking pedestrian, but then proceeded to flee the scene after striking the pedestrian with their car.

A human in the next lane is no more likely to be paying any better attention, nor to behave any more logically than the autonomous vehicle, which did exactly as it should in that situation: stop as quickly as possible and if contact cannot be avoided, remain in place pending response from authorities. The AV drove forward just as any driver would. Most humans these days have their noses buried in their phones that they wouldn't notice a woolly mammoth shitting on their windshield. God only knows how much damage your average driver would do to the pedestrian in their panic accelerator punching following the accident.

You're absolutely right. Which is why Michael Scott should have sued Garmin when he drove his car into a fucking lake in Dunder Mifflin Infinity.

In The Office episode "Dunder Mifflin Infinity", Michael Scott has a GPS installed in his car and drives it directly into a lake when it tells him to turn, despite Dwight's numerous warnings that they were about to drive into a lake.

According to this lawsuit, Michael Scott should have sued Garmin. Dumbest shit I've seen all day. These people sued Google because Google has a lot of money and will probably throw some at them to go away. What Google should do is mount a massive defense against the lawsuit and counter sue for legal fees to discourage this type of litigious crap rather than rewarding it with a settlement.

What if, instead of the bridge being washed out, there were a child standing in the middle of it and the vehicle killed the child? Who is responsible for ensuring that the road is free from hazards prior to the vehicle traveling across it? (hint: it sure as shit ain't Rand McNally)

Why did the street view vehicle not drive off the bridge?

Google Maps provides pathways between start and destination, and attempts to optimize said pathways to reduce travel time or gas or whichever options you select. Google Maps does NOT provide any warranty or guarantee that the pathway provide is free of obstacles or hazards.

Put it this way: if that bridge were okay but there were a child standing on it and this driver hit the child, who it at fault? Google Maps for telling the driver "here is a pathway to reach your destination"? Or the driver for failing to observe a driving hazard in the roadway? How about if Google had reports there was a child in the roadway? Would the driver have any fault for hitting the child then?

Google provides a feasible route. The driver is - and always has been - responsible for ensuring that their vehicle is operated in a safe manner, which includes watching for and appropriately reacting to hazards. If the bridge had washed out an hour ago, everyone would agree it was the driver's fault for failing to watch for a road hazard. If it had washed out a week ago, everyone would agree the driver should have been watching the road and taking appropriate action to avoid hazards. But a little more time passes and suddenly the driver is absolved of their responsibility and we find someone else (conveniently someone with deep pockets!) to blame?

Absurd bullshit. Mostly performance outrage by people who just hate Google. Love Google or hate Google; map providers do not take on any responsibility for the safe operation of motor vehicles.

You sure? Assume that current models are accurate and dark energy will expand the universe for infinite time. Further assume that QM is correct (it sure does seem to be) and everything at the quantum level is simply a probably field leaving literally anything possible - even if the vast majority of possibilities are indescribably improbable. Over the course of infinite time, quantum fluctuation will produce every possible configuration of matter and energy in the universe.

Kurzgesagt recently covered this concept here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

MORE taxes. MORE regulation. That'll solve it!

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.

You also get individuals who suffer from Galactosemia and cannot be breastfed.

We don't redefine the taxonomy class Mammalia to account for the fact that these specific individual members don't conform to the normal definition. Nor do we suddenly pretend that humans aren't mammals because these individuals exist. Yes, you can get people with genetic abnormalities who develop in extremely unusual ways. That doesn't mean that male and female don't exist in nature. That doesn't mean that they don't have well understood, well defined differences. Reality continues to exist no matter how many words get redefined to make a microscopic minority feel slightly better about themselves.

Homo sapien is a bipedal species regardless of the microscopic minority born without two functioning legs. The exception doesn't make or unmake the rule. Let people identify and live as they like, but trying to force others to accept their feelings-based identity as biological reality is never going to work. Males are still male; females are still female. If someone who is biologically male lives a happier life living as a female, more power to them. Girls and women still also maintain a right to feel safe in their own spaces. Trying to force them to just accept a biological male with his penis out in a female locker room is going to create problems. Trying to force them to accept losing in sports to a biological male is going to create problems. Trying to silence them for expressing how they feel about these situations is unconscionable.

Nah, let's instead force all of human civilization to completely alter fundamental aspects of how it's structured including all human communication in order to make this microscopically small minority feel slightly better about themselves.

SOME biological functions.

SOME. But especially when started after puberty, these changes are relatively small and will never equal that of an average biological male. And the reverse (moving male to female) is even more true. Muscle mass and bone density changes are small when hormone therapy begins post puberty.

False. Skeletal structure is set during puberty. In particular, the pelvis shape is set in stone. You can give the person lethal doses of testosterone and not alter the pelvis to look like that of a male. You don't know what you're talking about.

100% false. Hormones regulate a subset of biological processes. If I give you the hormones of a bird, you will not take flight. You can make more significant changes if you're giving hormones to per-pubescent children, but that idea is highly controversial. Post-puberty, you can cause some level of soft tissue changes with hormones. You cannot change brain structure or skeletal structure. It just isn't a thing that's real.

And none of that is to say that a person who transitions doesn't deserve love, respect, support, safety, etc. They absolutely do. They deserve basic human dignity and compassion. But love, respect, and compassion do not include forcing others to accept bullshit claims about biology. It is Orwellian to attempt to force it.

There. Are. Four. Lights.

There was not a single transphobic word in the whole post. There's just some of you muppets who call everything you disagree with transphobic the same way some people called everything they didn't agree with racist. And this is why you didn't quote anything: there was nothing transphobic to quote. You certainly didn't quote where I said: "She's welcome to identify as and live as whatever she chooses. If she feels happier identifying as a man, taking male hormones, dressing as a man, and acting as a man, then more power to her. If that truly makes her a happier human being, I'm behind her 100%." So knock off your bullshit.

You're fucking illiterate. Did you miss this: "If that truly makes her a happier human being, I'm behind her 100%."???

Then grow wings and fly ya fuckin' moron.

No, mind doesn't "beat biology". Social, hormonal, and even surgical transitioning don't affect bone density, pelvic shape, hippocampus structure, or any of the other underlying biology. Nor does it alter your 23rd chromosome pair. You can choose to be delusional, but reality will continue to exist. And you can't shout me down from saying so with bullshit accusations of transphobia. The only thing I'm phobic about is science denying, reality denying morons fucking up centuries of scientific and technological progress with a bunch of feel-good delusional bullshit.

As bad as I feel for the female competitors in that league right now, I'm glad it happened. People need to see what a stupid policy this is and what the immediate effect is. A policy like this will erase every accomplishment of biological women and exclude them from any chance at winning in the future. This is the antithesis of the purpose of having a separate league for women.

Chess isn't a measure of intelligence. Spatial reasoning is a major input into success and men have more development there. Women rarely break into the top 10 of the open league. However, the main reason a women's league was created was that the culture in competitive chess has not historically been welcoming to women. Dismissive, sexist, even sexually aggressive men have made that league a very uncomfortable place for a lot of women, so having a women-only competition space (which has lower ELO requirements by the way - 2300 ELO for the title of Woman Grandmaster), is a crucial part of bringing more women into chess and helping them develop their skills in a space where they're comfortable.

And a foundational principle of the right to free assembly is that you can choose who gains access to a private group. Should this group choose to only accept biological females, they are 100% within their rights to do so. If that's what their membership needs or wants in order to continue to succeed in their mission, then they absolutely should. However, my understanding is that they have NOT actually barred trans women. Rather, they have a review process for accepting trans women such that you can't simply walk in the door. But to say no trans women are allowed is false.