CEOs don't purport to represent me.

It was. You mischaracterize the post in question.

If you're spouting such straw man platitudes, then you don't know enough about quantum computers to condemn someone else. In the defense of the previous poster, I'll note that there are a number of phenomena that permeate all of the Solar System (gravity, neutrinos, and thermal radiation) that may place an upper bound on the reliability of quantum computing no matter how magical your technology is.

Since I didn't do what you are "telling" me I did, and you are now claiming that you didn't imply this either, then there's no point to this thread. We can communicate or we can imagine things of other people. I'd rather communicate.

No, I won't.

I think it starts with the idea that one knows best usually combined with a ridiculously oversimplified model of how things work.

Why would I be predicting that? To claim that die-offs are necessary for prosperity is in my view a non sequitur, another sort of fallacy.

Correlation doesn't imply causation. And really, die offs are associated in Chinese history with chaotic periods which don't have prosperity.

That's a lot of vague talk. What are "many people"? What are "screw ups"? And what is "better" versus "lot worse"?

There we go. With a "short time" being anywhere from a short time to a very long time.

For the OECD, it's 35% (from countries like Mexico and Estonia) to 70% of the US's spending per GDP (France and Netherlands). It's considerably better than the absolute worst, but it's still a big and growing problem.

Or you can have both or neither. There are four states after all, depending on which bits you set. Note here that by definition, democratic republics decide a number of things by collective agreement.

And I'm sure there's some dumbshit in your country that I'd rather have running things.

My view is that the US has better things to do with itself than to heavily subsidize Chinese solar power manufacturers.

It could be a bit better I suppose. But really, what is stable about the current public spending schemes? There isn't a stable public pension fund out there in the developed world, for example. Medical care takes an increasing portion of the developed world's economies. Businesses become more and more risk clueless due to (often highly profitable) government nannying.

We all have mental reaction times measured in microseconds. As I understand it, the current expectation is that you can react to an accident in about half a second, which is only a half million microseconds. That's quite ample for vehicle control as we demonstrate every day.

And why wouldn't we continue to insure humans? It's far riskier now to insure people, what changes to make insurance not viable?

And there are the customers who will switch at the drop of a hat to a cheaper or better product. It's not one way.

All it takes is one state. And why would human drivers become uninsurable while automatic drivers somehow wouldn't? I'm sensing some ill-thought top-down behavior modification going on here.

We don't live in a deterministic world. It's not even a matter as sodul stated of being human. Having said that, it wouldn't be that hard to put in a standard package of items in such a vehicle (umbrellas, toothbrushes, toys, etc) and automatically bill the riders for any items they use or take. In fact, that's almost a no-brainer due to the profit potential.