How about failing to pay taxes (who cares if you're in debt and need to get to work to have a shot at paying them)? Most people who don't, don't because they can't. ..and what about your example about child support, you want those bureaucratic tyrants at DCF even more power?

Would you really want the police having remote control over every car? Cops already abuse the powers they do have so there's plenty of precedent.

The typical model involves boiling a frog by slowly turning up the heat. History has shown us this repeatedly, and today's culture has tolerated massive heating already.

So we should all give up autonomy, liberty, and arguably, safety, so those short-sighted fools can play with their phones an extra hour or two a day? If driver's licenses don't filter out enough incompetence then the answer is to fix that.

So then if the remote 'pro' control is inferior to having manual controls, then removing them would put costs ahead of safety. Meanwhile the whole argument for a pro is to nullify the argument about the computer's lack of awareness. I'd rather just have a competent driver in the seat, and encourage that as much as humanly possible than hand my agency to some hellish oversight system that treats me as a statistic. People who want to spend every minute of their travel time on facebook should take taxis or trains wherever they can. Why sacrifice autonomy, privacy, and safety to cater to this childish impulsivity?

In a critical situation, the last thing I'd want to do is hand control over to someone else who doesn't have skin in the game. Driving in rain/snow is not 'that' hard. It just requires a bit of practice and common sense. Frankly, if the situation is so bad that I'd need a 'pro', it's probably best to just pull over and wait for the calamity to pass. In split second situations, there's no time switch controls anyway.

Of course. It's not right, either.

Why not just bring the nazis into it and go for full godwin?

Yes, whereas massive numbers of computers are hacked all the time, causing all sorts of issues. Instead of one human going nuts and causing an accident, we'll have dozens, hundreds, or thousands of compromised or badly programmed cars killing many times more people. If we can't even guarantee security of our currently networked devices, then it's only a matter of time before these cars are hacked through the wireless mesh. They will be very tempting targets.

Assuming you're doing what you're supposed to behind the wheel, you're watching the cars around you as well as your environment. You see that truck with the loose cargo that looks unbalanced? That object in the road, is it a plastic bag or a rock? You see a car two cars in front and one lane to your right.. By the type of car, it's behavior over the last 2 miles, and its condition, you know there's a high probability of erratic or aggressive driving. You know to watch that one. Good luck programming a computer with this. Humans are slower and less predictable, but they are much more aware of details in their environment and this more than makes up for those weaknesses. A computer is just a state machine programmed by someone else making assumptions and using heuristics to guess which situation the car is in atm. Google gave a talk about their system, and it works just like that.

A proper human driver is miles ahead of any computer. If the problem is inattentive driving, then the answer is to fix that, not to encourage more dependence and laziness.

Cars outpaced horsemanship because they were faster and could reliably go longer distances. Self driving cars come with rather heavy leashes that current cars do not, mostly due to crappy politics.

As opposed to legions of badly programmed or hacked computers?

I understand. It doesn't bode well for that 18yos freedom down the road. If it becomes mainstream, you can bet access to that remote controlled mobility will depend on an ever increasing list of state/institution imposed expectations. That's a powerful leash.

How about just letting people handle their own shit and call AAA if they need help, or 911 if they're in dire straits? They're there, the remote 'driver' is not, and the computer is too stupid to know what it is looking at. So what now? The average driver is to be considered too incompetent such that they must wait for a 'professional' driver to take remote control of the vehicle when the computer's heuristics inevitably fail?

Automation is supposed to make life better, not disenfranchise people and bind them ever more tightly to bureaucratic expectation. All ideas like this do is breed learned helplessness into individuals. I don't idea of a future where citizens are totally helpless and dependent on these systems to bounce them from one crisis to the next.

Today's 'free' societies are much more interested in convenience than they are in their autonomy, independence, and civil liberties. Dude, the future's like social! omg!

People are way too willing to give up their privacy and autonomy for half-assed conveniences nowadays. Considering the behavior of today's public and private institutions, it's nuts.

All advertising is targeted at the female ego nowadays. Even commercials selling to men frame the message in terms of what women will think (those horrible fiber one ads come to mind). Very few if any products are sold 'to' men directly.

You'll almost NEVER see ads like this on TV, given current political narratives in the media
https://www.youtube.com/v/5ZqX...

Some men like to share videos of their hobbies without a bunch of women shaming them back to the plantation. Before they'd have to create a separate profile or kick their female friends of their FB account. This gives them another option.

Of course, the real solution is for both to grow a spine and quit worrying about and/or micromanaging what the other sex is thinking/doing.

Right well, if the person defines these 'subjective' experiences, then holding others responsible for them is oppressive, and really how can men be expected to modify their behavior accordingly if they can't understand? Conversely, how could women be expected to? It would be best if everyone's civil liberties were returned to them, allowing individuals to set up their lives as they see fit.

Exactly. Feminists do this to men all the time. It's their standard modus operandi. Men who speak up are shouted down with cries of "It's a women's issue! You're not a woman, you don't understand!" Then they go right back to pushing for law and cultural change based on their own generalizations and stereotypes of men. It's quite hypocritical.

'Considering' yourself something and being something are two different things. There are lots of feminists who, when put on the spot to justify some sexist position taken in the name of feminism, claim the 'no true feminist would' fallacy as a response. "Oh that isn't really feminism, my own brand of it is." This doesn't change the basic fact that the de facto feminism exists, manipulating law and culture in hypocritically sexist and harmful ways. One, two, or 100 women claims of being feminists, and your choice to listen to them is irrelevant as far as this is concerned.