I've had to use it precisely once. It's fine for establishing a baseline in young children, because they don't accept abstract arguments. If they ever question another punishment regime like the naughty step, that's where you have to go
It may have worked for you in the circumstances that you chose to use it, that doesn't make it something that everyone has to use at some stage to draw a line. If you'd used physical violence, then your child had done the same thing again would you have done it again? What would you have done if they then did something worse? Then did something worse again? By your own logic you'd need to ratchet up the punishment because consistency is key. I don't think violence is lazy, and I think bad parenting is an unhelpful allegation, but I've never seen a compelling case made for why it's the better option.
Its a pretty damn meaningless term, and it seems to get thrown at scientists and academics a lot on this board.
It's very helpful when you use it in reverse. If you hear someone being called a SJW you can pretty much assume that the person doing the calling exists on a spectrum starting at "can barely interact socially, and feels oppressed for not being allowed by society to be the douche they want to be" and continues down to some pretty fucking disturbing sub-humans.
And there it is! That European smugness.
America the brave. Land of the free. God bless the USA. Leader of the free world. The American dream. Manifest destiny. American Exceptionalism.
America where it was controversial for a drama to include someone saying America wasn't the greatest country in the world.
But how dare those Europeans think they've made a better choice by now having the police routinely SWAT houses like they're playing at urban warfare!?
employers and customers alike need to stop giving a damn about anything other than the ability of the employee to do their job.
Yes, and the fact it is still something they need to do means that it is still common for things like visible tattoos to have some impact on careers; which undermines the rest of your post. Things will change, they have already changed hugely in a lot of places, but that doesn't make it the norm now.
Further, there are many scenarios where failing is not an option (e.g., medical, military, and space ventures).
Of course it is. It makes clear in the summary they are talking about failure during the experimental stage, not in production products. You think Lockhead, Pfizer, SpaceX never, ever, have a failure during the design or testing phases? Hell, military history is littered with thousands of weapons, planes, other tech, that never made it to production.
The article never suggested that they should fail for the fuck of it. The argument was that if you're pushing forward quickly on with something bleeding edge then sometimes things will break, and safety concerns aside that's not an issue for Google.
Do you really think so little of thought that it never occurs to you that it's important?
I'd follow your own advice, and I'm be more courteous as well but that's mainly because I don't like looking like a keyboard warrior.
Nothing you said in any way highlighted a short coming of a automated car. You made a few unsubstantiated remarks about machines being 'moronic' etc. Personally when I look at the behaviour of many road users, and too many internet posters, it certainly seems like flesh-bag morons are pretty common already!
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.