If you won't acknowledge that the language can guide users to make the correct choices then I think you're missing the point. By your definition ASM is safe and clear. Personally I prefer to have projects coded in a language that encourages expressiveness and convention, but that's mainly because most of my time is spent on systems that are designed to live for 15-20 years. Reducing or eliminating maintenance time is more valuable to me than pure wire-level performance. Others may have different trade-offs. You should know your project's goals and choose accordingly.

Which will pay for the site how, exactly? Like it or not, someone has to keep the lights on.

If, on the other hand, you have a safety feature that costs the manufacturer 10% of the cost of building the car and is far from standard in the marketplace, you are under no such obligation.

A car like this one though, that was not auto-driving despite the misleading summary, has no such requirement.

Except, of course, that it wasn't a self-driving car, simply a self-steering parking mode, and the driver had full control over the speed at all times. Le sigh...

Oh, please. Compared to even a moderately laden truck, a reasonable increase in fuel tax has almost no affect. Running a semi from coast to coast will burn 400-500 gallons of diesel while moving a whole lot of merchandise (and tearing up the roads in the process - a train would be far more efficient in both cases but that's not up for discussion at this point).

That thinking is why the Escalade exists - it basically counts as a commercial vehicle at the Federal level based on GVWR, and indeed can easily be registered as one locally if there's a good tax reason for doing so. Or go back further - the fact that trucks were exempt from CAFE is why the station wagon died and the SUV became a big deal. Well intentioned exemptions often do more harm than good. Whereas an extra cent per mile passed through to the person buying the service wouldn't even really show up on most transactions.

That already happens; people live in Vancouver WA (no income tax) and shop in Portland, OR (no sales tax), effectively asking the remaining residents of both states to subsidize their lifestyle.

No, the tax burden shifts from low MPG vehicles to vehicles in general. Big difference.

A better approach would be to have the fee slide based on the weight of the vehicle, since damage to roadways occurs by the square of the vehicle's weight, which would actually continue to reward more frugal drivers and shift the burden to those who actually incur the most cost.

Because that paralleled the concepts in the article, as a way of pointing out that the UI decisions people make do in fact have a tendency to influence the behavior of the users of the products (physical or digital) that they create. People build things to suggest that a certain behavior or set of decisions is "normal", "obvious", "easy", and "correct" all the time, and some times doing that sloppily or incorrectly has serious consequences.

Sorry, but that's not quite correct. Disney was famous for their use of rotoscoping, which basically involves filming live actors and then tracing their movements to create animations. Basically it was motion captured, just in 2D with far more primitive technology.

http://www.lomography.com/maga... etc.

Alternately:

A company designs and builds a car to safely drive at 70mph.

They spend lots of time and money showing pictures of the car on a race track and design the interior to make it feel like a race car.

The default position of the gearshift when pulled down disables all of the speed limiters and briefly flashes a "Race mode" light that, if you read your owners' manual, indicates that you agree to not hold them responsible for anything.

A complex procedure drops you into "street mode" which baffles the exhaust to legal levels and enables traction control.

When someone drives at 80mph and wrecks, the car developers act surprised and alarmed that anyone would be so irresponsible.

Accurate points, and congratulations on your successful business - and showing that doing things the right way doesn't have to prevent you from succeeding.

Many of them do provide their own apps. What they're not allowed to do is to use those apps to measure the fare - this because, historically, companies that bill on their own have been known to do what's known as "cheating," by ever-so-slightly increasing the fares charged as compared to the posted fares. Its easy enough for Uber to do as well, even with a map. Want to hail a cab though? Check the app store - there's tons of options already.

The "traditional" Uber - Uber Black - is almost certainly what's being used by politicians. It provides a nice black car (complete with a registered driver who already holds all of the necessary permits, etc) for slightly more than the cost of a Taxi and in my experience has always been great. UberX is the "new" Uber, where random people are driving. Don't confuse the two.

Personally, for the money I'll take "Uber Black" any day. It doesn't command a very significant premium and gives a generally nicer and more professional experience all around.