Not to give a pass to Cruise here, but I do worry a little about people wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I couldn't get decent stats for San Francisco, but in LA there are 112 traffic accidents, 4 of which are severe to fatal, every single day. 77% of which are attributed to driver error. Obviously, San Francisco would be quite a bit lower; in 2015-2016 it looked like it was about 3000 per year and 30 fatal.

As others have pointed out below, these two Cruise incidents highlight a couple of (the many) shortcomings in autonomous driving, but I still do think if a magic wand could be waved and all vehicles were instantly self-driving, there would be a dramatic reduction in accidents and fatalities. All of us think we are great drivers (myself included) and we definitely can be most of the time, but the reality is that none of us are ALL of the time. Those moments of imperfection multiplied by random chance and the number of drivers equals a lot of accidents, and I don't think there's any getting around that.

Autonomous driving will never be perfect either, but as improvements are made they can be deployed to the fleet and become non-issues going forward.

American girl: Why do you call cookies "biscuits"?
British guy: Maybe because we invented the language?

While I agree that it's good to eliminate hidden fees when promoting products, I think perhaps the bigger problem in the ticket sales industry is that the majority of tickets are purchased by brokers like StubHub and Vivid Seats. The majority of the sales of the resellers goes to tertiary brokers selling tickets at yet another profit as their profession.

Add to this that mechanisms are in place to funnel buyers into ever-increasing ticket prices using bait-and-switch tactics, and it would seem that is the greater area of concern. For this reason and no matter how much I like the band, I will only go to concerts where the band forbids the sale of tickets to secondary parties. The Cure recently did this for their tour. Depeche Mode did not. I bought tickets to the former.

Yeah, I'm old.

I don't know, Ali Wong: Baby Cobra was pretty damned funny, and I rarely find stand-up all that funny regardless of the gender of the person with a mic in their hand.

Moving your IT work offshore is NEVER about improving the IT capabilities of your enterprise. It's about adding a bullet point to your CV that allows you to say that you "negotiated a multi-million dollar contract to improve efficiency, save money, and make the enterprise more capable and nimble". With that bullet point, you can now up your ask when taking the next CIO position in 14 months.

The truth that you wasted millions of dollars, destroyed morale, slowed everything down, angered your customers, and left a dumpster fire in your wake is conveniently left off that CV.

I read not too long ago that a major hospital system in Ohio outsourced their entire IT staff to Accenture. The woman who helped make it happen was a former exec of that hospital system, a current exec at Accenture, oh...and the mayor's wife.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Colum...

TFA is behind a paywall. Google blog post about the virtual try on here.

Agreed.

Further, the premise of all of this is that social media companies knew what they were doing was harmful and they did it anyway. Lots of companies get away with that, but rarely if they do it to children.

And for all the commenters on here: if you don't have children, you of course have a right to your opinion and to voice it, but it really doesn't count for much. If you do have children and managed generally steer them in a good direction in life, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. You may have been a good and conscientious parent, but that doesn't mean that parents whose children when down questionable paths are "bad" parents. It's been studied ad-infinitum; parenting is a factor in a child's behavior and success in life, but not the only one.

Or that random asshole could use your computer to host his kiddie porn, and the FBI would like a word with you.

Feel like fixing it now?

It will be interesting to see if there is a US decline in H1B visas issued to people from India in 20-25 years. It will also be interesting to see if companies like Accenture, Tata, and Wipro see declining revenue during that same time period. Perhaps by then, AI will replace the need for that type of labor anyway.

This law is almost certainly unenforceable anyway, and feels more like a political, virtue-signaling stunt than anything.

That said, I'm wondering aloud if this could not be compared to the federal government shutting down darknet marketplaces? Those often have a mix of legal and illegal activities. TikTok and Hydra Marketplace may be different in spirit, but perhaps not in terms of the the letter of the law. Are the content creators on TikTok not the same as vendors selling legal wares and services on a place like Hydra Marketplace? Are the content creators (state-sponsored or otherwise) who illegally promote dangerous and illegal activities on TikTok not the same as those selling illegal wares and services on Hydra Marketplace? The government did not go after individual vendors but rather shut down Hydra Marketplace. Vendors of legal goods were prevented from selling their wares on that particular marketplace, but not from selling in general.

Could Montana's empty threat of a law not be viewed in a similar light? They aren't saying you cannot do it, just that you cannot do it on TikTok due to the many, and incontrovertible threats to the health and safety of people inside and outside the US. I did put the word "illegal" in italics above though because while TikTok definitely has harmful content on it, I do not know if promoting harmful actions is illegal in and of itself. If it is not, then I'm not sure my comparison really applies.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar or even a legal wonk, and I'm definitely not stating what Montana did is correct or legal. I'm just wondering if there is legal support or precedent for this new law.

Seriously, this woman has style for days. It's a perfect text upon which to take her oath of office and I hope it reflects her motivations.

RIP Carl, we miss you.

At the C-Suite? There is likely little difference.

However, the latter can be used as political leverage, draining jobs away from a growing labor population and applying some pressure to the Chinese government both internally as well as externally.

It also reduces the manufacturing capabilities in terms of functioning facilities and the talent to operate them within China's borders, potentially removing your adversary's options (politically, militarily, etc.). Perhaps less so for current technologies, but could have a huge long-term affect on newer and as-yet-undiscovered tech. Playing against China in the short-term is a losing proposition akin to playing chess (or Go?) one move at a time. They appear to take a much longer view. Losing a few manufacturers here and there is likely not important to them. Losing nascent industries or ones that have to materialize is a much larger concern.

Queue "Park Avenue Petite"

Of all the spider webs in all the dark corners of the city, she had to get caught in mine. Her name was Barbara. Sure, this doll was easy on the eyes, but had a look that could drive a guy to find the bottom of a bottle. She was a canary at a local joint called Gatsby's, and told a hard-luck of a missing brother who did odd jobs for a low-life named Vincenzo.

Feel free to pick up the story from here.

Normally, I'd agree 100% with you. The US government cannot tell media outlets what they can and cannot say as that would be a violation of the First Amendment.

That said, there is also considerable evidence that the disinformation campaign was perpetrated by state actors outside of the US. That is at least a wrinkle with national security implications, and that does fall under the goverment mandate. It would be fair to say that the waters get murky when the weapon is information (or disinformation) and the theatre of battle is online. It's much more clear when it's tanks, ships, and planes over land, sea, and air.

If there is evidence of the US government speaking to social media companies, my hope is that a strong case for national security was presented but ultimately the choice was left to the companies about what to do. That I think would be fair game. It would even be fair if the government offered a carrot. I'm not sure how I'd feel if they offered a stick.

Not frosted but, CRISPR Mini Wheats!