They'll have to account for it, but traffic accidents aren't even top ten . From the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm) for 2018: Number of deaths for leading causes of death Heart disease: 655,381 Cancer: 599,274 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 167,127 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 159,486 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 147,810 Alzheimer’s disease: 122,019 Diabetes: 84,946 Influenza and pneumonia: 59,120 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 51,386 Intentional self-harm (suicide): 48,344 Traffic accidents are likely tied up in accidental death, but are 36,560 per the IIHS.

Public policy is a balancing test. We're currently allowing large businesses to abuse non-competes because they have the power advantage when it comes to controlling a person's ability to make rent or feed their family. I've worked in a variety of businesses. If your business can't retain workers after training, then that's not a problem that should be solved with handcuffs on the staff. You have a retention issue. And if you can't afford to retain staff without handcuffs, then you likely don't have a viable business.

No, we can't discuss solutions because half of the largest carbon producing country in the world (per capita) still won't acknowledge global warming exists or is caused by humans. So, we need to discuss things like this because they can't move to the 'do something about it' phase until we get that far.

Lots of very smart investors didn't have $100M+, but can make lots of money for people with $100M+ and begin to amass a fortune for themselves as well.

They had to make the pivot for exactly the reason you mentioned. In early days, main-stream content was easy and cheap to license. It isn't anymore, so Netflix couldn't continue to exist. Continuing that business model meant Netflix was going to be dead. This new gambit either has to work, or it won't, but the old Netflix model of cheap third party content won't be back. I think it ultimately ends up with Netflix shrinking and having to be ok with that due to more competition. Maybe a micro-payments system might take over at some point where we can very democratically vote with our dollars, but ultimately, I don't think people really want that.

I don't think it goes that far. It's focused on the user, not the social media company. The user can't take actions to block and restrict based on viewpoint discrimination on their public pages. It doesn't obligate Facebook or Twitter to treat any particular parts of their services like public forums, though.

Two votes, nice post.

It's only "one-sided" because one-side has a decided challenge with reality and facts and has decided they don't matter anymore. In that case, being one-sided isn't a concern.

How many artists won't get the entry-level apprentice-like opportunity to learn from people with more experience because this role has been automated?

Seeing that black hole, figuring out how they form, and how they behave increases our understanding of things like quantum mechanics. These are findings that have had applications (GPS, quantum computing, etc.) and we have every reason to believe will continue to have applications. Plus, it helps us understand other big systems like our sun, which might come in handy too.

Likewise, the value in meditation may not be motivation toward a specific task, but rather overall well-being. We can (and should) find other ways to motivate people but encouraging a sese of well-being can definitely avoid those days of minimal productivity from feeling terrible, avoid likelihood of leaving from over-stress, etc. Who is out there championing meditation as a motivator that we needed to disprove it?

Additionally, people don't really care. Geek care, that's mostly it. Most everyone else doesn't care, and that matters, because if they don't come to this utopia of distributed privacy, then no one else will either.

This. It's high risk very low reward.

One of the child comments mentions "if you can't get VC money then your idea is likely beyond crap" which is silly. Most VCs aren't interested in one-off hardware ideas. They don't have the explosive growth that's attractive to VCs. Hardware is hard, and I think someone needs to push for crowdfunding to involve more than maybe getting the product at a slightly-below retail price, or nothing. Laws need to be changed, but give these people stock in the resulting company. They're literally funding it...

But, like we do medical studies, it's valuable to setup a phase 1 trial and see if things start to look like they're working, and then we expand those trials/experiments if they work as expected.

Not to mention that, at the moment, batteries are very specific to a particular car, which happens to be one of the largest capital investments a family can make. What kind of life-cycle degradation can we expect from the car being a base-load for the house? I'd hate to be reducing the life-expectancy of the car because it was used floating the house. I have a feeling a pack dedicated to the purpose would be better suited to the task, and much less expensive to replace when it wears out (as opposed to taking apart the car). It also doesn't fit the use case for most families. The house-supporting battery pack will need to supply most of it's power at night, but that's when the family is expecting the car to be charging to the next day's commute. When the house or grid is at full renewable production, your car is most likely sitting in a lot at work somewhere.