That's because the elderly suffered much more stringent brainwashing as children that leads them to say that they "support those who fight for our freedom" while also promoting a police state worse than Orwells worst nightmare. The younger crowd grew up with much more access to information and see the police state for what it is and do not have the blind worship of government that the elderly do.

Don't confuse being raised going to church with actually believing that bullshit. Very few people actually believe in an invisible friend with magical powers.

See, that's the problem....EVERYONE wants a piece of the streaming pie, but people aren't going to pay $100+ a month for every streaming service. They WILL have to pair up and we'll probably end up with 3-4 main services for probably around $10-$15 per month, per service.

I'm sorry that you don't have an attention span, but how does that mean Netflix's model is bad? If you don't want to watch more than one episode a month, you're free to do that. For the people that enjoy the show and want to watch it all, they get to do that. Literally EVERYONE wins.

There's no question about it, the prices for goods will increase. Even if that weren't the case, their income relative to the minimum wage is being cut by almost a factor of 5 (from almost 10x the minimum wage to only a little over 2x the minimum wage).

Slightly over twice the minimum wage is a far cry from the almost 10 times the minimum wage. If you honestly don't think that prices at stores / restaurants will increase to reflect that higher minimum wage, you know nothing about economics. So in reality, their $70k will become worth far less than it is now.

Once Seattle's minimum wage goes up to $15, $70k won't be that great of a salary!

This also only works because it's a very small company (roughly 70 employees). The more employees the company has, the smaller of an impact a move like this has for each employee. A large company like Walmart or Microsoft doing this would result in an insignificant difference to each employee's paycheck.

This is the EU's method of paying for their massive social spending. Every few years they pick a successful American company and file bogus "anti-trust" charges, then extort billions from them. They all need to just tell the EU to go fuck themselves and pull out - and make a very public announcement as to WHY they're leaving. After the people actually living there find out that they'll no longer have Amazon / eBay / Windows / Xbox / Android / etc, they'll be pretty pissed at the greedy politicians who drove those companies out.

No shit, they don't live long enough to GET dementia. You don't exactly see a lot of fat people at the retirement home - there's a reason for that.

Except they're not the same thing. They may be the same general concept with the same objective, but being pushy lacks any tact or politeness. There's a huge difference between person A saying something like "Your competitor is offering me $5k more a year, but I feel this company is a better fit...is there any way you can match that?" or person B saying "I refuse to work for anything less than $X!".

So if they're willing to sell themselves short and work for less (when they have just as much access to information about average salary for the field / region), how is that men's fault? Maybe when they got the offer, the economy wasn't good and they were desperate and didn't negotiate - that's just basic labor economics, not sexism. I've worked jobs where I knew that I was being paid less than average for my qualifications, but I also knew that the economy at the time was shit and I had no other offers. However, when conditions are better (such as when I obtained my current job) and I have a decent paying job already, then yes - I will push it further because worst case scenario is that I keep working at the existing job and keep searching, best case scenario I get a much bigger raise than I was expecting. Sometimes you take that gamble and lose, other times it pays out in a 25% pay increase. Just because women in general are less willing to take that sort of risk doesn't mean that men are "evil" or should be punished.

It always seems sort of shady, they have all of these combinations you can put together on their website, yet the dealership lots are filled with dozens of identical cars missing all of the cool shit they show on their website.

You can also use keyfiles too.

I think parking will be less of an issue. Think Uber/Lift with autonomous cars. This would be especially true in cities where parking costs can get ridiculous. The fleet would spread themselves out based on historical data and probabilities on where people are likely to request them from. I could see systems that will automatically call a car while you are waiting at the registers of stores so that by the time you are a the front door, a car is reserved and waiting there.

I think the biggest hinderance to fully autonomous cars will be the illogical nature of the human psyche. At some point, these cars will be advanced enough that they will be significantly safer than human-driven ones and will start making life-and-death decisions based on the rules that will reduce overal loss of life and limb to the human population in general. For example, image that the car as been put in a position where it needs to decide whether it is likely going to kill two people or kill one. Which path should it choose? Most people would say kill the one instead of the two. Now, what if the car is yours and you are the one person?

Even though the chance of a car getting put in that position might be orders of magitude lower with autonomous cars over manual cars, a lot of people will not like the idea of their property chosing to kill them to save two complete strangers.