A relative has a luxury car with drowsiness detection. One trip I told my wife I thought it was time to change drivers, and just as I was parking, the car dinged and displayed a coffee cup icon.

There's sleepiness, and also alcohol is not the only drug out there which interferes with driving.

OTOH if this system was required in every car sold, the resulting economies of scale would likely push the costs down fairly quickly.

At the risk of moving the discussion away from amusing reductio ad absurdums and in a constructive direction... the actual question to be asking is: "are the benefits of mandating this technology worth the costs?"

The benefits here are obvious: reduced deaths, injuries, and property damage.

The costs are: increased vehicle prices (to compensate for the development costs and materials required by the new technology) and potentially some accidents introduced in cases where the technology performs poorly enough to cause an accident rather than preventing one.

My intuition is that the technology is mature enough at this point that it makes sense to mandate it, but that's only an intuition; the NHTSA doesn't operate on intuition, it operates on extensive studies, so its opinion here is worth a whole lot more than mine.

It is clear that this kind of generative "AI" (I always put the scare quotes around these things) is not possible to use ethically when it's training corpus is internet content. It appropriates the work hundreds of millions of people for their own use, and makes a mockery of the attempts of people to build a global IP commons. It's used to create bullshit products for bullshit people, and to deprive honest writers and artists of employment in fields that were already rife with uncertainty and economic injustice. Its use in commercial products at all is a red flag. These things are simply facts.

You'll almost always find what you're looking for in your own history list within seconds.

You're presuming everyone has a history list. I don't. I specifically have it turned off. As someone else above mentioned, I bookmark whatever I want. No need for a history if you have what you want.

It's pretty rare to treat bible text literally. The bible is God's words interpreted by men.

Say what? The Bible IS the word of god. Those words are literally, in the truest sense of the word, in that little book. Those exact words, the word of god, are quoted by a multitude of Christians. A simple search shows site after site from Christians adamantly stating the Bible is god's literal words.

As for rarity, again, a multitude of Christians will tell you the text of the bible must be taken literally. Granted, those same Christians don't do what they say and pick and choose which parts to take literally (mixing and matching of fabrics anyone?), but they do take it literally, fire and brimstone and all.

They can do whatever they want in that regard.

What right to they have to do anything to anyone else? Would they like it if Satanists started doing something similar? It's none of their business who a person is if that person wasn't part of their cult.*

This is one of many problems with mentally ill religious people. They stick their noses in everyone else's business when they have no right to do so.

By definition, all religions are cults but not all cults are religions.

Where did I deny that some women might feel uncomfortable pulling up her skit with some creepy guy in the next stall? Everything I pointed to says that very thing. With all the rapes and assaults that men do against women, it's no wonder many women don't want to be alone with an unfamiliar man. As I said, that's why Japan has women only trains. Because women were, and still are, perennially assaulted because men can't control themselves, so the only solution is not have men around.

Of course what would be nice is if all those mentally ill Christian men who are terrified of their own shadows would follow their little book. Start with Matthew 18:8-9. Perhaps their problem isn't with others, but with themselves because clearly they are more worried about what's between a person's legs than being a decent person and letting someone take a piss or shit in peace. They've probably never read John 15:12 or Matthew 7:12 or Luke 6:31.

And who said I was for safe spaces on campus? Isn't that what Republicans are calling for with the protests against Israel deliberately killing journalists, medical personnel, and civilians? They're calling for safe spaces.

Great! Please let us know how often this has happened. Details or it didn't happen, cutie.

No they don't. I know several married Episcopal priests, and woman Episcopal priests. Where are you getting your information?

What is a "veritable gold mine"? How do I get one verited?

Dictionaries. They're a thing. You might want to reference one if you have questions.

You should qualify that as the "Roman Catholic Church".

Nope. Catholics, Christians, and Jews to be more specific. Not that any other religions don't have child rape and molestation, only that these are the predominant ones in the U.S. who do so.

If you meant in Spain, then yes, Roman Catholic Church.

On the other hand I've heard a lot of women online arguing that there need to be female-only spaces because they don't feel safe.

Complete the thought. Women need female-only spaces because they don't feel safe around men. Why do you think Japan has women-only trains? It's the same reason that over half of women say they'd rather encounter a bear in the woods than a man.

This nonsense about "overriding" rights of one group by another is a non sequitor. There is no "right" being overriden. Someone needs to take a piss or shit. That's it. It's the same pathetic argument about gay marriage. The mentally ill religous folks will claim gays and lesbians are getting special rights if they're allowed marry. How? In what way is allowing two people to marry any different just because they're the same sex?

If you're that worried that someone different might use the same restroom as you, there is a simple solution. Don't use a public restroom. As an aside, bills such as this are the exact same type used to prevent blacks from using the same restrooms as whites. Won't someone think of the children!

Yeah! We won't be "controlled" and "manipulated" by women, either! They only represent a little over half the population. Or by black people! They only represent--what--30%? Or by the elderly! My "% of population" goalpost is easily moved, and those below that % aren't allowed to "control" or "manipulate".
Oil companies? Sure. They represent a lot more by lobbyist dollars. Car companies? Ditto. Meat packers' unions? Not as much, but they aren't allowed because "meat packing".

The rational of the bill is a fear of transgender people in women's restrooms.

Oddly enough, no one ever talks about women going into men's restrooms. The same with lesbian sex. People such as those in Utah will whine about gay sex, but they will always men sex between two (or more) men. Never between women.

Funny that.