Having watched *millions* of jobs in the US and even more globally disappear at the hands of automation in the past 30 years, it is pretty laughable to insist that somehow the trend will stop and/or reverse itself any time soon. You are right that there will always be a need for a certain number of humans in any given physical operation, but that number is constantly going down and it will not stop going down until it's at 1. Keep on thinking that "most of the jobs are safe" and sure, they might be safe in your lifetime, but they are not safe for very long in the bigger picture of urban planning, which is the crux of this article.

Sometimes? Yes. But the question of commuting is about *all* the times.

Since this thread is about autonomous cars...

stocking robots

surgery robots

factory robots

automated delivery robots

digging robots

plowing robots

serving robots

valve turning robots

Did I miss any?

Momentary density will increase but as the cars require a much smaller timeslot of the resource, the average time spent on the highway will go down and thus the number of cars at any given moment on the highway will be lower. This will probably result in longer commutes as the penalty is lower (living 1hr from the city will be tolerable since the commute can be used for work anyway), but the potential for optimized scheduling and ride-sharing is so large that even if half of the cars on the road were ridesharing with one extra passenger, that cuts down traffic by 25% which in most cases is enough to act like adding another full lane to the city core.

I already know what's going to happen in the year 2525 and beyond. And, well, the year 9595 doesn't look good. Why bother planning for it.

They probably mean that a missile strike is basically the missile shooting through one side and out the other since the skin isn't thick enough to trigger a detonator. A small missile sized hole is enough to down it, but not very fast.

So, you think it's the mark of an advanced society that allows for parts of itself to be community oriented and reject technology? We've got plenty of that in the US.

And Russia leading a currency revolution? I spit coffee on the keyboard, thanks for that. The ruble is worth less than 2 cents, and dropping as we speak. Russia isn't leading anything but their own fading influence.

"I find author's facts dubious" sums up your comment rather nicely. Other (asian) nations might appear to be technological leaders because their airports are new and shiny (at least, the one airport at the capitol that you visited) and that's all well and good but as soon as you get away from the metropolis you see where the actual differences lie: in the US you have technology accessible to nearly 100% of the population, in terms of cost and functionality. That shit ain't easy. In developing countries, the upper half (maybe) can afford it, but the lower half live without even reliable electricity, much less a computer to grant them access to rich information/education/entertainment/etc.

Because it's not clear from the statement what exactly took place. Did they bump a barricade lightly while trying to peacefully leave the checkpoint, and in turn get pursued by the guards and shot to death despite being unarmed and showing no actual malice? We will have to wait for more details to emerge.

Actually there was only one important caveat: "Pass a law that if a service provider says that they offer service to an address they must do so by law." So the goal is not to get service to every address in the US, the goal is to make paying the fines more painful than generating a correct national broadband map. Correct map in hand, consumers can make a more informed choice and national providers will have a more flimsy straw man from which to argue behind.

Any civilisation that after 5000 years still makes food so hard to eat that it needs to be poked, chopped, ripped, etc AFTER the chef is done, isn't that great. Chopsticks are not a symptom of lack of refinement, the food that passes as "prepared" in western cultures is.

/flame on

The thing is, if they did, you would never know about it. It may seem like they don't even try, and they might not be, but they could also be defeating 95% of it. With a mission that is by design clandestine, no one may ever know until our kids get a peek at the public records dump 50 years from now.

Given that they had to redact a good bit of the material in the suit, my guess is that they are doing both. And why not? Trade secrets are internationally recognized as property, and property law is pretty easy to assert. If they can show a clear paper trail, they will probably win.

Of course any passwords that get cracked are cracked offline, it has been a long long time since even the most poorly architected of sites had an auth service capable of responding fast enough to brute force. The point is that more often still, passwords are lifted out of databases that don't bother to encrypt them at all, or passwords are "Cracked" by exploiting a poorly built password reset system to overwrite them. In those cases (which account for almost all of the malicious per-account activity), it doesn't matter at all how complex (or uncomplex) your password is.

Both are farcical. Good catch.

The point is that a site could very easily be giving you great password strength advice and then proceed to do something totally stupid with it (storing it with such a poor cipher that can be bruteforced in seconds.)