That they have thought of them doesn't imply they have any good answers.

The problem is that even if you can anticipate 90% of the things that can happen out there, there will always be a 10% you can't anticipate. You don't anticipate them as a driver either. There's no way for "the incredibly smart people" to make decisions ahead of time for things they cannot think of.

For humans, it takes a couple of decades of learning how to be a human, so you understand that if a policeman with a gun walks up to your car, you do not move, but if a shady looking person does the same, you gun it out of there. Or any other of unanticipated things that drivers encounter. Millions of them every day.

I think the war will be how fast and reliable they are. A system that's safer but takes longer to get people from A to B, or gives up and stops for any little thing in order to increase safety won't be too popular.

My life has only so many minutes. I don't want to spend more of them than I have to being slow cargo.

You are not considering the speed they're going at and which roads they are going on. It's easy to avoid accidents when going sub-25 speeds on a predefines subset of roads. Whether you're human or not.

Until we see some data on how autonomous cars do on all kinds of roads and driving speeds and conditions, I don't think we should extol their safety. Going 55 mph over a hilltop on a country road, or avoiding a deer is a bit different. Or a busy bumper-to-bumper city street where no-one will let you over in the next line unless you force the issue.

I'd also ask how long it took for the car to get from A to B, and how it compares to a human driver. Time is important to people; enough so that we're willing to deal with risks to save time.

You put too much faith in the accuracy of the geographical guess of where the IP is. My static IP address is listed being in a shed around two blocks away from where my ISP is, and around 40 miles away from where I actually am. My dynamic IP address is listed around 5 miles away from where I am.

(But thanks for the correction of the IP address to .30 instead of .20)

% nslookup -type=PTR 20.202.111.74.in-addr.arpa. ::
Server: ::
Address: ::#53

Non-authoritative answer:
20.202.111.74.in-addr.arpa name = static-74-111-202-20.lsanca.fios.verizon.net.

And the check is in the mail.

No, this is just plain irresponsible behavior by those who share infomation to PillPack and others.

Recently, I noticed that when I picked up a prescription for a (for me new) medication that's mostly used for one purpose, I suddenly got dozens of spam e-mails wanting to "help" me with a particular diagnosis I don't have. And that's the few that went through the double layer spam filter. It was way too pervasive to be a coincidence.

It's clear that the US prescription system leaks like a sieve, and that even spammers have access to people's prescription history.
Can we go back to paper prescriptions that don't enter a database, please?

Why would anyone need to reverse engineer open source libraries from Android?

Yes, Agile (if done correctly)

That's like saying "buggery (if done correctly)".

The ones who might take pleasure from it will rarely be on the receiving end.
Even the performers may feel dirty afterwards.

No one does Agile "correctly". The customer doesn't have the time to invest in micro-managing decisions.
The developer side does not have enough time left over to investigate the big picture and have detailed specs before producing code.
And management never gives the dev side enough time to revisit the code. It's always going to be "move on" instead of "move on when ready and move back when required". Things will get handed over the wall just as much as before.

In theory, Agile is fine. But it never survives first impact with customers and management, who invariably wants the benefits of Agile without paying the costs.

In practice, it's running lemming sprints.

I could be wrong, but I think that high level management are more used to settings where face-to-face communication is the driving force, and that paperwork is something secretaries and lawyers do.
I don't think they really appreciate the need for precision, lack of ambiguity and a verifiable record that exists within engineering and development, and think that face time can replace precise types of communication.

I'm sure the phone companies are happy, though.

Here's the cliff notes version:
EPR = ER is true if Podolsky equals 1.

A bunch of us who actually manage systems tend to disagree.
Hundreds of DOS ini files, having to compile things instead of just modding a script, and not being able to step through a startup or shutdown process is not what we all consider easily manageable.

If it really were easily manageable, it would not have caught so much flak.

Sometimes you're the octopus, sometimes you're the girl.

And low and behold

Unless you talk to an audience of cows, you want to say "lo and behold".

Measles, mumps and rubella do not fit that description. They have a very low mortality rate, and it's the weakest that tend to succumb.

Smallpox has a higher mortality rate, but also here, it's those with weak immune systems that tend to die.

This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective - diseases that don't kill its vectors are going to outcompete those that do.

I can't think of any disease which kills healthier specimens more than the weak. The avian flu scare a few years ago was initially reported as hitting the healthiest the hardest - that turned out to be misinterpreted results; it hit the most mobile part of the population more often due to a shorter than usual incubation window, not harder, which led to more young adults dying. And many elderly were already immune due to an outbreak in the 60s.

So I'm sorry, what are those "quite a few diseases out there" that you refer to?

Very frequently, it has a lot to do with whether you survive it if you catch it.
And that is what determines whether your genes have an advantage or not. It only takes a small statistical advantage for successful genes to be selected for.

Um, yes? But the diseases we vaccinate against aren't 100% lethal or 100% sterilizing.

It's not chance that determines whether someone who does catch the disease will survive as a reproductive individual. It's the overall strength of the immune system and fitness of the individual.
As long as some catch and survive a disease, evolution selects for the genes those individuals have versus those that die, become sterile or never catch the disease. Take away the risk of catching the disease, and those genes no longer have an advantage. With vaccination, those with weaker immune systems have an increased chance of surviving until reproduction, and as a result, the next generation will, on average, have weaker immune systems than if the culling had taken place.

If your father would have died from measles as a child had he caught it, due to him having a weak immune system, and he survived because he or those around him got vaccinated, chances are higher for you to have a weak immune system than the child of someone from an area without vaccinations. And if you have a weaker immune system, the risk of allergies is higher.
Of course, your father might have had a strong immune system and laughed off measles. But the reason we do vaccinate is that not everybody does. There will be lives saved, or we wouldn't do it. Even if just some survive that otherwise wouldn't have, this will have an impact on the next generation.

We choose to save lives now, and accept the genetic costs of the weakest not being culled from the herd. This isn't something that is disputed. It's a moral choice we make, but we don't get to escape paying the price - at least not until we reliably can make genetic repairs.