Facebook didn't simply set out to make tweaks and see how users responded; they setup a controlled experiment on subjects without their consent; a practice that appears to violate ethical and possibly legal guidelines for behavioral research.

I've had parking spots that I claimed (blinker was on!) stolen from me. I didn't call the cops.

How are you going to prove B would have moved earlier if not for A? Reading their mind?

Specific practices like driver using phone while driving, or curb parking time limits can certainly be regulated. But not the basic fact of people exchanging money for information. Dislike it all you want, but people have freedom to do as they want.

So it is also illegal to offer somebody money, in person, to let you know when they leave their spot so you can park closer? Technically speaking, you're not paying for the "public" spot, you're paying for the opportunity to park in a more convenient location for a period of time, at which point you leave.

Not even close. China does the majority of their own coal.

The pollution I blame on the US (and Europe, don't feel left out on the Asian peninsula!) is that WE let them get away with it. We buy their cheap, pollution producing crap. We buy it. And as long as we buy it, they will produce it. It is our pollution, whether you like it or not.

The measured rate of rise has been averaged out at 1.1 millimeters per year, so who in their right mind with the credentials to back it up would predict 20cm by 2100?

nobody gets a Nobel Prize for dropping rocks off a tower.

Given that we're talking about Legos, I assume you meant "misogynistic, homophobic yellow guy brigade"?

Social Justice Warriors want to parade about the most trivial crap I tell you.

No. That would be assuming you can go faster than the speed of light, without limits, which isn't the case.

Even if you were a massless particle, you would reach the speed of light in less than 1 year of accelerating at 1G, and then, you wouldn't be able to go faster.

Self driving cars are absolute nonsense. It requires intellect to decide whether an object is a plastic bear or a real bear about to enter the road, and has to be braked for. Any business/investment into this self driving car design field is setting themselves up for a major lawsuit because the basic principle is that you require artificial intelligence on par with a human to make the same correct decisions while driving, identifying objects and predicting their future behavior correctly. Even a dog's level won't cut it, as shepherds have dogs and sheep, and the trio exists well together, but dogs and sheep can't coexist, or at least wolves haven't figured out a way yet, and you need a human to decide things like we're gonna take that mountain pass yonder instead of the one over here. Alpha wolves and wolf packs make similar decisions, and a whole lot of wolf lives depend on a good or bad decision, in middle of winter, similar to the Donner Party back in the Oregon Trail/California Trail days. Even humans make horrible judgment calls sometimes which way to drive, or in an accident piling up in front of you which way to swerve, how are you gonna trust these decisions to a machine, or intellect less than a human? Driving is a matter of life and death. If anything you need a machine smarter than a human in comprehending the world around it, and predicting actions of objects like insane people as pedestrians, walking in the middle of the road. Saying you ran someone over "legally" does not fly far in court, just because someone crossed the street before you when they had red light and you had green, or stopped in the middle like Rain Man, you still have to judge for yourself what to do.