To proscribe is to prohibit. Perhaps you meant prescribe, or some other word, but using "proscribe" completely flips the meaning of your statement.

The taxi industry is a poor example if you're looking for something that needs sympathy. Getting in as anything other than a hired driver is nearly impossible. Look at the prices of taxi medallions. In Chicago, a medallion went for about $70K in 2007 before skyrocketing to $357,000 in 2013, then falling back to $270,000 earlier this year. In New York City, it's even worse: they were going for around $850,000 earlier this year, down from $1.2 million in early 2014.

There's also the problem of having a cab around when you want one. Some cities are great for this; the aforementioned Chicago and NYC are examples of places where it's generally easy to get a cab. But in much of Southern California or the Dallas suburbs, cabs are relatively rare, and even when calling the company, the wait can be significantly over an hour compared to an Uber or Lyft pickup time of usually only a few minutes.

In any case, if the only reason that a new industry is morally wrong is because it puts people out of work, then almost every industry today is morally wrong. The tractor industry would be wrong because it put farm workers out of work. The airlines would be morally wrong because they put ships' crews out of work. The printer companies would be morally wrong because they put typing pools out of work. And yet no one really claims this because it's not true.

Did you see the swap occur, or was it all smoke and blue curtains?

The current Corvette is broadly considered to be the best deal in high performance... in the world. The new Cadillacs are awe-inspiring and built like they mean it. Even Ford has apparently discovered reliability. You're talking bollocks.

I'll grant you a lot of garbage is still coming from the big three, but look around the world. Everyone makes shit cars.

[citation needed]

Most submissions I know anything about, which is to say both mine and those which submitters have commented on, have been edited.

Wow... that's something that every other operating system's service manager can handle.

OK, so exec the daemon from your script, whatever. It's not a problem for me. However, not doing this gives you a chance to do more stuff when the daemon dies...

It's a fact that systemd proponents abuse moderation to support systemd. It is my assumption that they do this because they know systemd is shit, and that they are shit, and they can't handle the scrutiny.

I've been there, and what I saw was a bunch of people who don't own Teslas slapping each other on the back while looking at photos which don't provide any proof that swaps are occurring.

Sure, I agree. But credit systems are bullshit, too, and Tesla is gaming the credit system on top of that.

I didn't say it makes them unimportant. I said it makes them hard to fight over, and that means far less chance of fighting. Absent discovery of significant resources in those locations that can be economically extracted, there's no reason for an outright war over them. India and China are both well aware of the problems that India and Pakistan have had fighting over the Siachen Glacier, where around 2000 troops have died, all but a few dozen from exposure, avalanches, or other climate-related circumstances. Neither China nor India wants to deal with that to fight over economically unimportant territory. That's why there's an occasional skirmish, but not much else.

One exception may be the Tawang region in eastern India, but China would still have to cross the mountains to take it if it came to war. India would likely have significant notification of a build-up, and could through airstrikes and artillery make life difficult for any Chinese forces heading over. That's not including whatever economic restrictions would be placed on China over such actions.

If by 'cure' you mean 'desensitize to the point that eating one or two peanuts won't kill you' then yes

Russia and its predecessors have a history of about 800 years of being invaded by one group or another. These included the Mongols in 1223 (who weren't driven out completely until 1480), the Crimean Tatars in 1571, the Polish-Muscovite War from 1605-1618, the Cossack uprising and incursion from 1667-1670, Napoleon's invasion in 1812, Japan in 1904 (mostly naval, but still an attack by an outside power), and Germany in 1941. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the eventual joining of NATO by every non-Soviet member (plus the former Soviet Baltic states) is often seen internally as an incursion into Russian interests, with the discussions of Georgia and especially Ukraine joining NATO leaving Moscow surrounded by enemies who are only a couple of weeks' fighting from the gates of Moscow.

It has a traditional reason to be xenophobic, regardless of whether it makes logical sense to those outside Russia. The Warsaw Pact nations and the former Soviet republics were buffer zones for Russia, land they could afford to lose, at least temporarily, while ensuring that Russia itself survived.

The current situation is only barely tolerable to Moscow, and is exacerbated by recent low Russian birth rates and low life expectancy, leading to a decline in population for nearly two decades. While this is turning around recently, the increasing birth rate is also heavily subsidized by the government (families who have more than one child get a lump-sum payment of about 428,000 rubles (worth about $6800 now, as much as $11,000 before the downturn in oil prices) and heavily dependent on the economy, which is in a difficult position, to say the least. As fragile as it is, it may decrease due to hits to the economy if more sanctions are added or the nuclear deal with Iran induces further oil price reductions, and perhaps in that case by increased alcoholism (more than a third of deaths in Russia are linked to alcohol).

I don't expect Russia to go to nuclear war, but they see the situation as desperate, possibly bordering on disastrous, and it puts them in a difficult position where even pie-in-the-sky ideas (like a Bering Straits bridge, to get back to the original post) sound like a good idea. You might think their position self-made, illogical, or even stupid, but it's very real. You don't have to agree with it to understand it, but dismissing it is just dangerous.

Wake me up when they prove that they're actually performing battery swaps, which is required at this phase to get all the credits they're getting. There's no evidence that they can do it, let alone that they are doing it. (If anyone feels differently, let's see some photographic evidence of a swap actually taking place; I am not interested in seeing the pictures of the car sitting in the swap station with nothing happening.)

Really? Because I did say I thought it was a douchey thing to do. If all Americans thought that way, it wouldn't have been damaged. QED, you didn't actually read and/or understand my comment before talking about it...

Sometimes it's the only way. We held off on airstrikes against ISIS specifically to ensure that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki would not hold on to his position. As soon as his successor's selection (and so someone who actually accepted the Sunni) was ensured, airstrikes started in earnest. (They had begun already to help protect Yazidi tribes fleeing ISIS persecution, but only a handful of those happened.)

As much as Karmashock's hyperbole and predictions are off-base, on that point, he's right.

If a bomb that small is required to take down a bridge designed for that environment, it's a poorly-designed bridge at best.