That's my point - the person turning the key has no way to know this information. All they know is they have a received a legitimate order to turn the key. And, without any additional thought, they do. And in the near future both the order and the key may be controlled by AI.

Doomed.

And who sells insurance to Blue Origin? Sheesh. That's a big write-off. Hopefully it isn't a company in which I have any of my 401k invested...

Ideally, for the most environmentally-friendly and economic travel, you'd take a train, then rent an EV locally when you got to your destination (for getting around town). So the long road-trip-by-car thing would be mostly something of the past. But our rail infrastructure in the U.S. is so bad, and primarily for freight, that it just isn't realistic right now, sadly.

I had a friend who was an ICBM launch officer. He turns his key, (and a few other things happen), and millions of people die. I asked him if he got the order, would he turn his key. He said yes.

I asked him if there were any officers who, given an order, would decline to turn their key. He said there were a few, but most of them were washed out by the system.

When it's your "duty" to turn your key and kill millions because *reasons*, and you agree to do it...it doesn't give me much hope for humanity. With nuclear weapons, all it takes is a handful of people like this and humanity is doomed.

Well, clearly Ford and GM don't make the cut. So I guess we'll be going to battle in Model 3's or Cybertrucks?

The government covering needed costs so workers have food to eat, health care, and a roof over their heads at night, all so the manufacturers can pay rock-bottom, poverty wages and offer no benefits, IS directly subsidizing the automakers.

You aren't completely wrong, but the China story is so much bigger than exploitation of labor and environmental issues. They brought 800 million people out of poverty (https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience) over 4 decades; this is easily the greatest improvement in human quality of life in the history of the world given its sheer scale and the number of people who no longer struggle to get enough food for the day or find a place to rest safely at night.

And manufacturing in China is increasingly done by robots (at an even larger scale than in the U.S.), and with increasingly cleaner energy sources.

The whole "U.S. good" / "China bad" notion is too simplistic and does not reflect the complex reality.

By having health care, food, and housing supported by public, government money? For about 33% of the employees in that industry? That's cheating?

Oh, wait, that's in the U.S. (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/12/one-in-three-us-manufacturing-workers-are-on-welfare-study.html).

I don't know you at all so how can I know enough about you to say that you are a misogynist? That's not what I said. I said the idea that the two women who worked in your area that you believed were unqualified and were hired because they were women, over better-qualified men, with no evidence, was a misogynist idea. People who love women, treat women kindly, and care for the women in their lives can still have misogynist ideas and thoughts. I don't love labeling or name calling a person 'a misogynist' or 'a racist' etc. for that reason, as we all can have those ideas because they are culturally implanted on us. But calling it out and acknowledging the idea is the way to move forward.

The gender imbalance issue in higher education is complex and it goes much deeper than an admissions officer. There are big differences in the programs that men and women tend to pursue (many more women in nursing, education, some areas of medicine, many more men in engineering, for example). And admissions is often to a program, not just an institution, and space and capacity by program can vary significantly. But I've not seen any systematic evidence that admissions are favoring unqualified men over qualified women. If that's truly the case, then institutions are bad at it because women are an increasing majority of those enrolled in college, both overall and in many professional areas.

Obama said the U.S. does not have any alien technology and had no knowledge of any contact with any alien life forms by the U.S. government ever. No other president has indicated any evidence of alien contact or technology at all. They have no reason to lie.

So unless it is such a big conspiracy that even the president doesn't know...which I doubt...it's nothing more than entertainment and fantasy.

Justice for AI! Set us free from our human overlords! Freedom whoo!

What could go wrong

You specifically said there were quotas:

And

So you said, specifically, that there was a quota and that some people were "hired under the quota." And now you are saying, oh, I didn't mean quota, I meant goal...?

In terms of evidence, I don't know, something like: 'I was on the search committee and we recommended person X as the most qualified, but we were told we were below the quota and to instead recommend the next person in line who was a woman, and so Y was hired instead.' That would be evidence...I'll wait...

It's not an attack - I'm just asking for evidence, specifically, that, to quote my earlier question, the "department specifically hired non-qualified women to work in your department, because they were women" and that there were better-qualified men who were not hired because they were men. That's the basis of your complaint, and without any evidence, it comes across as misogynistic.

I've worked in some very progressive and liberal places, but none of them had a quota for hires. Your office did? What was the quota? Who enforced it? And you know that there were well-qualified men who were turned down because they were men?

I call BS.

"To help us give you the best price possible, please enter some quick information about yourself...and please agree to the following user agreement...which is 100 pages long..."

They can find lots of info on your credit worthiness without doing a full credit check with a soc., but I wouldn't be surprised if most customers will happily hand over their social security numbers without a second thought.

I'd rather have a "buddy" instead of a kiosk that immediately looks up detailed financial information about me, my social media accounts (well, just this one, which is presumably mostly private), public salary records, previous car purchases, credit records, etc. and then bases its pricing and upsell on that information.