Again, you have to adapt the methods to your particular computer. Not all sort algorithms are equal in this regard. It's not that hard to find an O(Nlog(N)) algorithm or hybrid algorithm that works manually.

That turned out to be false as jbolden demonstrated.

Best example of accidental sarcasm I've seen in a while. This little hurdle is why we call H1-Bs indentured servants.

Sure, we can implement behavior changes via political action. But why should we? Also, fossil fuels also have externalized benefits such as cheaper everything due to lower transportation costs. My view is that there isn't a particularly good reason to act right now. But with a few decades of experience we should be able to tell if global warming is a serious problem or not. That should also give us a good idea how long we can push the various fossil fuel industries and may even obsolete a few of the uses for fossil fuels.

Sorting is not such a problem. And adapting your software algorithms to the needs of your computing system (here you) is a pretty important skill.

Why don't you explain it since you're the one looking?

Reread the previous post. Nothing about reducing H1-Bs. Maybe that's the end game for the previous poster, but greatly reducing the indentured servitude aspect of an H1-B visa (especially while saying nothing about reducing the number of H1-Bs!) doesn't restrict the labor pool.

It's like late night informercials. You might see right through this, but someone is buying it.

Neither driver would be intoxicated.

In my original quote which you first replied to:

Moving on:

Unless it doesn't actually do that.

No, to me "unsafe" means elevated risk of harm from an activity beyond the expectations for that activity. So one important way to study what is unsafe is to look at what sort of groups or behaviors are involved in harmful consequences.

You have very high expectations for risk from automobile accidents, but why should the rest of us share your expectations?

I'll present a US-centric case and examine mortality rates (since those are well documented). If the only way we could die was by accidents or injuries (including suicides and homicides), then we would have an average life expectancy (once you get past the dangerous years of childhood) of almost 1700 years (due to a 60 deaths per 100,000 people in the US). That increases to roughly 2500 years, if we exclude intentional causes of death (40 deaths per 100,000 people). Of this, motor vehicle deaths make up 10.8 deaths per 100,000 people. So if we could eliminate that as a cause of death we'd increase human life expectancy by a considerable amount 300 years for the former case and 800 for the latter.

But we don't live in that sort of world where it makes sense to go hardcore on reducing highway deaths. Instead we live in a world where the US has a death rate of 800 per 100,000 people and even complete elimination of highway deaths won't have much effect on our lifespan since most deaths are due to illnesses that come upon us when we get older.

Second, there is this unwarranted assertion that we can make self-driving vehicles substantially safer than any human driver. You present no argument for this other than to assert that the best of human drivers are "unsafe". However, if that were true, then you would expect that the most unsafe drivers, the drunk drivers and those who who can't maintain a valid driver's license would have a far smaller share of the highway deaths than they actually do. Everyone should be contributing significantly, not just the very worst.

Will there even be an organism recognizable as human in another 1000 years? There's more than one way for humanity to cease to exist.

Probably "exceeds" by -90% (yes, negative). I gather somewhere between a third and half of all US highway deaths involve people driving while intoxicated or driving without a valid driver's license. That's not a large portion of the drivers in the US.

Freedom is an important part of that and yes, I do consider safety much less important than freedom. But I also think the safety and lane capacity arguments are way overplayed here.

There are two things to note here. First, developed world labor is going to experience that competition no matter what is done. Second, customer base isn't evaporating in the developing world. Those economies are doing just fine.

And they're harder to guess because one has to wait 50, 100, or 10,000 years to see if the predictions come true. Climate predictions don't suffer from the chaotic behavior of weather, but they do suffer from systemic bias of the climate modelers.