What does "earned" mean in this context? If a hunter kills a deer, and 5 hunters all drove the deer to him, how much did the killer "earn"? What if there's only one deer in the entire forest, already claimed as owned, but unkilled by somebody.

It's human nature to want the best meat and to get fed first regardless.

And, in historic fact, the leader of the tribe probably gets the choice pieces off the top, before the hunter and his family. But beyond that, hunter-gatherer is practically synonymous with a "gift economy", far closer to communism than capitalism.

Is there even a conceptual way that something like Tor could be run that would prevent it from being detected.

Also, regardless of whether they were legally at fault, could the AI have avoided the accident/mitigated the damage? I don't really care if I'm not legally responsible for the head on collision I had at 60mph, if it could have been avoided by a lane change. I don't even care if the lane change was improper and illegal, unless it also causes an accident.

I know they won against Seattle. In my example, they had to use only 19 of their cheating methods (all successfully), since one was already uncovered earlier.

Testing your cheating before the Superbowl seems smart. They may retroactively take away your victory, but they cannot re-play the Superbowl. So if you get caught cheating in the Superbowl, you may end up having to give the rings back. But if you get caught cheating in the playoffs, who would they declare the victor? The other team in the Superbowl? The team you cheated against? Replay the thing? Logistically, they'll just fine you, maybe slap an asterisk next to the win... but probably not.

It would be super confusing to the defense if the Patriots used smoke grenades! And that's why they're banned.

Look, you want a balance between offense and defense. If the rules are making it too hard on the defense, you modify them. Just like when the uprights were on the goal line, it made it too hard on the offense to be in a scoring position and not run into them.

An RFID chip. Found in the ring. But you can also tape it to the outside of the machine, and it should work.

Well, if that's the case, I don't see a reason not to take it down. It really doesn't add much to a conversation, and clearly causes a lot of pain. There's no good reason, other than being a dick, to leave it up.

The robes, which are probably only used within the sorority house during rituals.

Also because politeness is usually reciprocated. If an officer is polite to me, I'll be polite to him. And that helps sort me from the crazies he has to deal with.

If there's any irony, it's that the Pats cheat so hard when, frankly, they don't have to. They really are that good

Or maybe they cheat 20 different ways, and they only got caught on one. Maybe they really suck when they stop cheating entirely.

You asked why commercial and non-commercial use is handled differently (in the US). I used a taxi driver as my example, but the same applies if you're hauling big rigs across the US or delivering pizzas door to door.. In fact, none of my verbiage pertains to picking up or having passengers at all. You could replace it with "chulapa delivery guy" and it changes nothing. You're on the road a lot longer, and often exposed to more dangers.

And I doubt your current insurance covers, let's say, driving nuclear waste in your backseat from a power plant to a dump site. Which is a commercial use.

Heck, a lot of people even questioned if you read your policy correctly.

It's against the law to drive without insurance. Most insurance has limits on things it will cover. Therefore, it is illegal to drive while doing things that insurance will not cover. The fact that the circumstances of these are based on a private contract makes it hard to enforce, but does not change the legality.

What the hell would be the difference for me or my car for what I use it regarding my liability towards anyone I (might) harm?

Because a professional taxi driver is on the road for 8+ hours a day, not just 1 or 2, So they have more risk. They also tend to spend a large amount of Friday and Saturday nights in the bar districts, which seems intuitively like a place loaded with inebriated pedestrians and other drivers - both risk factors.

Would it surprise you to know that the city you live in also affects car insurance rates? At least in the US...

No one gives a shit about most laws, until they are affected by the negative consequences that those laws were designed to prevent. Wait until an Uber driver smacks into your car, and his insurance refuses to cover commercial activity. Depending on your uninsured motorist coverage, you could be okay. Except, cities without well regulated mandatory insurance for cars tend to have insurance death spirals, so good luck having that 3 years from now.

If you want to call laws outdated and out of place, you have to understand why they were created and how to prevent those same issues from coming about when you repeal the law.

They totally enforce the laws to some degree. Hundreds of people get ticketed for violating the laws.

But you're talking about the process. I'm talking about the desirability. I think the laws are, in general, good for America. There's a reason they were put in place. And while they may have been captured by industry, the harms they were put in place to avoid are still out there. So my question is: Why would we want to change the law. Or, the question I was asking and you ducked was: In what way can you change the law and still avoid those harms?