You ask a stupid question. Try harder.

Nonsense. But you nicely show the stupidity of the average person here.

First, obviously a self-driving car comes with accountability. It just sits in a different place. And second, most humans cannot adapt to unusual situations either.

The bottom line is that self-driving cars already kill less people per distance driven than regular cars or are close to it. But I guess people like you are fine with people dying just so long you have not adjust to anything new.

Trump wanting something small and cheap? That must be a first in his life.

Yes, used to do it successfully for years. Neither trivial, nor impossible, just doesn't pay to do it anymore, the populace is not interested in anonymity.

for many years now and I can only say one thing - good riddance.

Condolences to those who are still stuck with it, but you really don't have to.

I thought the garage was where people put their guest bedroom. :-)

Not entirely correct. It is the only *active* pad with that infrastructure. There are decommissioned pads that have been used for manned missions in the past. What state they are currently in is an unknown, but it has been speculated that equipment could be salvaged from them to repair the damaged pad.

That's "gospodin mask" to you, Comrade, not "Elon".

The shares of Schpace Yikes that musko is selling aren't "public" so he can pretty much control who buys them... Because he's selling them.

And that is actually the problem with this "story": Self-driving cars are held to a much higher standard. That is neither rational nor useful.

Delivering equipment to the 3rd Reich to aid in the killing of jews. Funny how history repeats itself.

You do realize where you are, do you? This is not a classroom and some basic understanding is required to play. You clearly lack that.

Don't be a (mentally) lazy fuck. There is a large body of literature on this question.

Indeed. The difference is that everything you assume (not believe) to be a fact needs to come with evidence and need do be falsifiable (i.e. evidence that proves it is wrong could be obtained if it is wrong). Obviously, you, personally, cannot verify everything. But you can verify some things and it is expected that you did, usually in school. The only assumption that you need to be able to make is that all the other facts were verified by somebody.

In contrast, with faith/belief, there is no verification. Nobody has ever successfully verified that God (which ever one) does exist. There are some plausibility arguments, but they are all weak and many are basically not even argument but just serve to confuse the question by adding complexity. None of these meet scientific standards. And that claim is not falsifiable either: You cannot disprove God exists. What ever proof you have, it would be limited, because in some dark corner of the universe, God could be hiding away, ignoring everybody. Hence "God exists" does not even need the requirements for a scientific claim, regardless of whether that statement is true or not. This is the reason why Atheists say things like "God does almost certainly not exists".

In short, you can "believe" scientific facts (or not), but in doing so you do not participate in Science and you are not using the scientific method. Any claim to Science being about belief is simply a direct lie though.

PLA is also not very durable. In hot and humid climate, PLA can decompose in a few months. PLA is, in some sense, a great prototyping material but not suitable for most other tasks.

Yep, that nicely sums it up.