I am pretty sure it, no matter where you are, if there is evidence showing that the pedestrian did something that goes against all expectations of people around, which led to their untimely demise, it will exonerate you as a driver. If a pedestrian is walking on a sidewalk and then just streaks onto the road and throws himself under your wheels, no matter how good a driver you are, you couldn't have expected it, maybe at the time you were looking in your rear view mirror and then turning your head to the left, to check if you can switch lanes, before you did that maneuver, you were confident that no pedestrian is moving towards your car sideways. Things are not always that clear cut.

The OP argument is incorrect, the problem with this case is not that Assange is not a US citizen or resident, the problem is that he never promised anyone, any employer or any agency to keep any of their secrets. If I find a binder with information that is classified by some 3 letter agency, I may decide to disseminate it (very likely) and I should never be prosecuted by anyone for this, because it was not my job, not my promise, I wasn't in a position where I was supposed to keep it a secret.

I will take it a step further, even if I enticed someone to provide me with such information, paid them money for it or whatever, I am still not supposed to be attacked for it for the same exact reason, it wasn't my job or my responsibility to keep it a secret.

This UBI exists today already and it brought the civilization to a halt. I am talking about millions upon million of people who depend on the government one way or another. I include government employees into this category, not just people are simply receiving all forms of welfare, be it actual welfare, social security payouts, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, you name it. It is not all, I include all government contracts into this, all companies that are one way or another receiving money from governments, so this is money that was either taken away by taxation or borrowed or printed and given to the government to bury itself and the larger society with itself. All of these things exist today, all of it is happening, AI is not the catalyst for this, the amount of real productivity that AI allows us to have is negligible compared to the enormous layers of automation that we have in infinite forms. Machines, transport, computers, robots, we have all of this today. AI is not changing the equation, the equation was and is and will go like this: I am unable to do better for myself by myself (regardless of the reasons, real or imaginary) and I demand that others take care of all my needs and more and we must have government provide this (through the government power and force and just basic rule of violence - he, who can deliver the most violence wins, until recently governments were the ones capable of delivering the most violence, I am actually rooting for this equation to change, I would prefer that private individuals manage to deliver more violence than the government, I am just not interested in this type of societies we built here).

UBI exists already, taxation and borrowing and printing money and credit expansion allows for it to exist, of-course the increasing money supply is inflation and it reflects in the rising prices but this has never stopped us for real.

If you look at economics that throws out the external costs of coal.

Globally fossil fuels recieve seven trillion dollars annually in public subsidies. But that's just a drop in the bucket compared to the costs it is allowed to pawn off on other parties. If fossil fuel users had to pay the externalized cost of pollution, then the world would be running on nuclear power right now.

Mommy, sorry, it is not a matter of price for me at all. I will not buy an electric car because I don't want to plan my day around charging stations, that is all. I have an electric monowheel, that is for fun and I have to admit, it is useful for short store trips not too far from me, but it is not a car, it is just a convenient small mode of transportation.

It is not even about accessibility to a charging station, we have many around, I don't want to bother to think about them. When I need to add fuel I will find the nearest gas station and be in and our in 5 minutes and forget about it.

I don't think Econ 101 price/quantity equilibrium is entirely what's going on here. Gigabit service *availability* is about the same in Spain and the US, despite America's per capita purchasing power adjusted GDP being about 60% higher than Spain's.

I think the relevant figure is this: Spain has roughly 2.8x the population density of the US. It's surely a lot more expensive to build the infrastructure to cover roughly the same percent of the population here.

Although that's not *nothing*, the question is who exercises admnistrative control of that data. If the Chinese government demands data from ByteDance's management, and ByteDance's management complies, that data is not safe. Of course, even in the US a federal agency can obtain a secret warrant which enables them to help themselves to your private data held by a third party, and because it's *secret* you can't challenge the warrant's legality.

The smart thing is don't put anything sensitive onto any kind of social media. Now some metadata may itself by sensitive for certain persons, like your approximate location at various times. Such persons shouldn't use social media at all, even if the data is hosted in the EU, which generally has the best data privacy protections in the world, because there is *no* country in the world where a company can defy a lawful warrant, whatever "lawful" means in that country.

maybe you shouldn't trust the words of terrorists in the first place, their words about the number of people killed, the number of children killed, especially when everyone under 19 is counted as a child, even if this 'child' is holding a machine gun or a grenade launcher.

I think one place to expect operational savings is refueling. Conventional reactors spend about 8% of the time offline being refueled. Every eighteen months thousands of workers from all around the country come to the site to do the work. SMRs are designed to need refueling much less often, typical every 3-7 years. Some designs go for up to thirty years without refueling. Plants with a larger number of smaller reactors can also do maintenance and refueling without losing any revenue, as the remaining reactors put out a little more power to compensate.

SMRs shut down and cool down much faster; some don't require any active cooling measures at all. You just shut the thing down and a week later it's cold even if you don't have outside power. So there's a lot less plumbing to monitor and maintain.

Of course these are all just promises now. Running these things is going to be so different we won't really know until we've built and operated some.

Relational data models were proposed by Edgar F. Codd in 1970, SQL is only one of the languages that were proposed to work with the relational databases. SQL is an idea that there has to be an easy to use computer language to communicate information between humans and the underlying RDB. Chaberlin seems to be peddling a different language, that somehow translates data between an RDB and whatever passes for modern language 'of the web' (Javascript).
RDBMS is not going anywhere, many people just want to make their money on adding various layers of indirection, just like XML did for some in the past.

"If we only did the right thing then we couldn't do what we want to do."

Which in itself says nothing whether you are or are not violating the creators' rights.

You as the non-owner of the IP have certain fair use rights that depend, not on the mechanism by which you obtain a copy of the data, but on the effect of what you are doing with the data upon the copyright holder's proprietary interests. A download button does *not* indicate content is free game for commercial use.

It's already extremely safe. Cycling has a lower death rate per participant than *tennis*. And while your risk per *mile* is signifiantly higher on a bike than as a passenger in a car, your risk per *hour* is signifiantly lower. Since most cyclists aren't putting nearly as many miles on their bike per week as their car, the bike represents a low risk to them; in fact if you take up cycling your chance of dying in the next year goes down by 1/3 once the fitness benefits kick in, even though you've just added a new way to die to your personal list.

So tech like this is unlikely to reduce *absolute* risk very much, because absolute risk is already very low. It so happens this particular tech could reduce the most fatal type of accident -- being struck by an overtaking motorists -- but these types of accidents are very rare, as are cycling fatalities. Since there's only about eight hundred cyclist mortalities / year in the US there's not a lot of room for improvement, especially as this tech is bound to be installed on only a tiny minority of bikes. It does nothing for the two most common types of accidents: (1) cars entering the street to make a turn and hitting a cyclist traveling along that street and (2) cars passing a cyclist and making a right turn at an intersection across the cyclist's path (the "right hook"), so it's unlikely to affect metrics like ER visits and hospitalizations very much.

We have to sharpen our thinking about what we're actually trying to accomplish when we talk about "making cyling safer". I'd suggest there's two things we can be reasonably trying to do: eliminate as many *preventable* deaths and injuries as possible and make people *feel* safer when riding a bike. There's a lot of injuries that can be taken off the table by designing and marking intersetions better and improving lines of sight. Many of these changes would also reduce car-pedestrian accidents and car-car accidents too.

Technologies like this can't make cycling statistically much safer than it aready is. But they can do a lot to make cyclists feel safer -- much the way some cyclists are spending hundreds of dollars *today* on rear-facing radar units. Those are good things, but they're no substitute for better design which would both make cyclists feel safer and make everyone statistically safer.

I was riding my monowheel yesterday, on a trail, where people walk, bike, ride all sorts of contraptions. Here is what I can say about trying to predict what anyone does:

as long as a person is riding something, he is paying infinitely more attention than someone who is just walking, standing there. I was closing in on a couple of girls, they walked in front of me in the same direction, so they didn't see anything happening behind them, they walked on the right side of the road, so this is all good, all of a sudden one of them decides she wants her picture to be taken (the other one took it). So what does she do? She streak across the path, without stopping to think for a microsecond, without looking sideways even, never mind behind her. She crosses the path and strikes a pose, the other one turning to take her picture. Lucky for me, I was still a few meters back when she did that. I was going to pass them on the left (this is the opposite side of the path clearly, people bike and walk both ways on it). I rode between them. When I close on anyone from behind I either have enough speed to pass them in a fraction of a second on the left side or I tell them to watch for me, passing on the left. I imagine that we could have actually collided, but she would have collided with anyone, a bike or a pedestrian walking slightly faster, the only difference would have been the degree of damage. She would have been thrown, had I hit her, I had some protection, she obviously didn't have any.

There is nothing that can be done, you cannot control people's motion, I mean we cannot install 'self driving' into people's heads. They turn into you on highways, they don't look and do all sorts of things, oblivious about the surroundings completely, always amazed that something actually happens after they do something like that, as if life is supposed to protect them from every stupid thing they do, as if they are the only ones in space and there is nothing around them, nothing moving in any direction at all.

Beside the obvious problem of privacy invasion with systems like this, the reality is that there is no amount of technology that can save people from their own lack of thinking.

Nuclear - this is what we need, it doesn't emit CO2 and it works around the clock and provides massive amounts of energy and it doesn't degrade the way solar does and it can be easily controlled and the waste is stable and becomes more and more stable over time, unlike what the detractors tell us. This is what we need, it's not what we are getting obviously.

I think there are a few stories that should be posted every day, over and over again, there are answers to these stories that should be posted over and over again, the only thing that works with people is constant repetition, you can even teach people to sympathize with terrorists, like the idiots who chant for palestine and hamas, I am always amused by women on campuses and the non binary individuals, homosexuals and trans people who rally for Islamic causes, I wish them to get what they are chanting for, I just want to be there when the Islam does to them what it is supposed to do to them.

So we can teach people to be anything, any ridiculous thing at all on Tik Tok and such, this means that it is a failure of the thinking community that there are so many ignoramuses out there preventing the obvious solutions to the most pressing problems. We have to use nuclear instead of coal, gas, oil. We have to stop terrorism, which means supporting Israel and Ukraine. We have to deal with the failing economies by shrinking down government spending and allowing people to work for living instead of relying on government hand outs. Those are clearly unpopular opinions, they are fortunately or unfortunately the correct ones.