The first time you implement something, you don't know there's a market for it. You write something that is very specific to your customer's needs.

The second time you are asked to implement it, you have a known demand, and you have a chance to resurrect the old code and make it better suited to a wider variety of uses. You can charge the second customer the amount it would take to implement from scratch, and use that time to clean up and prepare your previous work for their purpose and for general audiences.

Carriers for him serve two purposes: LAC carriers -- which throw out a large number of small, independently crewed ships -- provide easy flanking (for craft with impenetrable shields along two planes, this is important), and missile pod carriers allow for offloading large numbers of missiles at once.

LAC carriers are relatively cheap. Pod carriers are quite expensive, but mainly because they throw out a thousand missiles where a typical engagement would previously have expended a few dozen.

Why not alternate between work and retirement? Work a standard job for 20 years, then take off 15, then start thinking about your next career and maybe go to college again. Or look for a standard job when your retirement funds wear thin. Or look for an awesome job that you won't view as work so you can keep at it for a longer period. And if you didn't find one this retirement, you'll have twenty more retirements in which to try again.

Bad analogy. People are tracking your interactions with their servers, and sometimes selling this information to others. It would be closer to a department store using facial recognition with their security cameras to track your behavior in their store.

You need maybe the tenth percentile of physical fitness for a Mars colony. Probably more like twentieth.

For the Olympics, you need people who have molded their bodies for some particular purpose. Most of them have high general fitness. This level of fitness is outrageously high.

If he clears it with his boss, it's within the scope of his work.

If I were reviewing code and saw a crass reference to primary or secondary sex characteristics that was not explicitly required, that would not pass code review. I would also have a talk with the person about professionalism. It doesn't matter whether they are male or female. It's not how I want my company to be portrayed externally, and it's not something I want in my corporate culture.

In the Ukraine, they have two weightlifting leagues: the standard one, where you're allowed to take steroids, and the natural league, where you're allowed to take the expensive steroids that don't show up during testing.

Humans suck in general. Combine the two: don't allow the human driver to take control. Ever.

Getting a decent UI for fine-grained destination control might be hard (I see a gas station and want to pull over, sort of thing), but that's solvable.

A niche product probably shouldn't get that much time at IO.

I'm all for behaviorally targeted recommendations. I want to be able to opt out, but I'd definitely opt in.

I imagine this should fall under the standard behavioral targeting rules, where you must be informed that this is going on and have an option to opt out.

Which is not to say you are unfit for the position. It's an indicator, but people get bad interview loops. Google knows this.

More to the point, they don't let you distinguish easily between different applications, since they're all the same color (with few differences) and all blocky so you can't distinguish outlines.

A self-driving bus would not have a drunk driver. And if everyone took public transit, the ratio of drunk people to sober people would be low.

I've never seen a ticket line for a bus.

It would be more efficient to have fewer vehicles, each of a higher capacity, all managed by the same entity. You can standardize on the models of vehicle in use, which means fewer types of parts, less training for maintenance personnel, and less time designing assembly lines to produce extremely similar but incompatible parts.

Insurance with professional drivers is, I'm guessing, cheaper than insurance with private drivers. Also, a larger entity has more bargaining power when negotiating its insurance rates.

I've heard rumors that some of them got into accidents -- when the human drivers were in control. The AD (artificial driver) is apparently very reliable, even dealing with humans on the road.