An interesting potential takeaway from this line:
"More than 90% of owners said driving with Autopilot makes them safer -- including most of the respondents who simultaneously faulted the software for creating dangerous situations."

Drivers who faulted the autopilot software for creating dangerous situations simultaneously felt that the software kept them safer.
If they were safer, that means that the autopilot either reduced the overall number of dangerous situations they got into or reduced the severity of the individual dangerous situations, compared to when they were driving themselves.
In other words, users were saying "autopilot put me in x number of dangerous situations, but my own driving would have put me in dangerous situations more frequently, or situations that were more dangerous".

Can I get real-time location data for those drivers, so that I can get a Tesla and program the autopilot to never get within 10 miles of them?

I was thinking of making a joke about the desnity of politicians, then realised we would need to send an awful lot of them out into space to make up the mass of a neutron star... so we can send all the lawyers out there too!!
That then reminded me of this "what would a mole of moles look like" thought experiment by Randall Munroe at XKCD, which is something of an obligatory nerd reference that needs to be linked periodically on /.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/4/

If the provided solution satisfies the criteria laid out in the question, then it must be marked as correct.
If the provided solution is correct, but not the specific one that the questioner wants, then the fault is with the way that the question was phrased. The person answering the question should not be penalised for the questioner's incompetence at choosing how to ask the question.

For example, "Using the numbers 2, 2, and 4, show an arithemtic equation that is both correct and uses all of the available numbers."
If you want the answer "2*2=4", that is great. But that does not mean that you can refuse to accept "4-2=2", "4/2=2" or "2+2=4", because both of those also correctly satisfy the requirement defined in the question, and this is a test of knowledge/critical thinking, not of luck or psychic ability.

Considering that caffeine and nicotine are both nootropics, I find it difficult to believe that, of the 4149 votes, 85% of responders do not at least drink tea or coffee or smoke cigarettes.

So... big business will win, by reducing competition and enabling higher prices as a result. The average Joe will lose because of said reduced competition and increased prices.
We can now replace Lincoln's Gettysburg Address with the new version for 21st Century America.
"...this nation, under God, shall have an improved revenue stream for the wealthy — and that government of the people, by the elite, for the elite, shall not perish from the earth".

Remember folks, that money in your pocket... it is not yours. You are just being allowed to hold it for a short while until its rightful owner comes to claim it.

For several years, I have been working in banks, with large teams of people using specialist trading keyboards built by Bloomberg (picture a normal QWERTY keyboard with a bunch of extra buttons, pre-programmed macros, colour-coding all over the place, and built to withstand daily tantrums and being hit by stressed users), which have very good (dare I say, state-of-the-art) fingerprint scanners on them.
A certain percentage of users cannot use them - the ridges on their fingerprints are too small.
In winter, a higher percentage of users cannot use them because the cold lowers the height of those fingerprint ridges.
This colleague used a hand cream a few mintues ago... their keyboard would not validate their fingerprint because of the oil in the hand cream.
That colleague cut the finger they use for authentication when doing DIY at the weekend, and now they cannot login, because their back-up finger (not the one they stick up their backside when bored... but the one the system says "register this as an alternative for when your primary finger is unavailable") doesn't work for some reason.

And these Bloomberg keyboards are damned expensive, so they use premium quality components. Consider how reliable the sensors on cost-focussed consumer keyboards are going to be.

He certainly is a former politician, but as an economics guy whose policies were credited with a proactive approach to dealing with unemployment and having a positive record of job creation, he is generally considered to be one of the more competent voices on economic policy in the Nordics, although his trousers do have a reputation for falling down when women are in the room.
He is also seen as something of a technocrat, and is apparently a voracious reader with an open mind and curious nature, so while he certainly won't be getting a job developing AI systems he is in a good position to see how the economic impact of Brexit would affect, for example, employers and R&D efforts in the tech sector.
But, as a politician, I am sure he is capable of coming up with a scenario where the political climate creates a danger, and spin things so that only his current employer can you you out of it, if only they had more funds...

So, he goes up to space, sees that the edge of the world is not a straight line, and that the earth curves. So to maintain his "flat earth" delusion, he will come back and announce that the earth is actually a flat plate?
Aside from the fact that I would *never* wish harm on another human being, I really hope that when he lands, he does not land on his head. There is probably not much inside it to be damaged, but it might leave a sizeable crater.

For some people, it would make no difference. But for the vast majority of people, being in the air for an extra 30 minutes would actually be less arduous than landing and being close enough that you could (regulations aside) walk the last few steps.
An illustrative anecdote that I saw a few years ago was about the design of a new airport terminal (I think it might have been Terminal E at Dallas Fort Worth or one of the newer terminals at Atlanta, but I am not 100% sure and my Google skills are as bad as usual...). The architects and designers were very vocal about how much time, effort, and new-fangled computer simulation time they had spent in optimizing the passenger off-boarding, minimizing the time and distance from deplaning to the passengers getting to the public areas.
Almost everybody who flew into that terminal hated it.
Why? Because while it was incredibly quick to get through the whole process if you only had carry-on luggage, the baggage handling system was the same as at every other airport. So people found that they got through security and to the baggage claim area very quickly, but they were waiting a long time for their luggage.
How was it solved? With a brand new automated baggage handling and prioritization system?
No... it was solved by giving passengers who were deplaning an artificially long route from the Arrivals Gate to Security, and from there to the Baggage Claim. The goal was that the passengers and their baggage should arrive at about the same time.
It worked... people now loved (or at least liked) arriving at the new terminal, because they were able to get to Baggage Claim, pick up their luggage (or wait a minute or two for it to arrive) and go.
The fact that they were not actually saving any time with the new process (no change was made to the baggage handling system, it was still operating at the same speed as before) was irrelevant and un-noticed. All that changed was the passenger perception - they were kept busy by walking, just long enough for everything else around them to work.

People are stupid. As babies, our parents give us brightly coloured toys to distract us and keep us quiet. As we get older, the toys get more expensive, but there are all sorts of adults giving us things to achieve the same goal, and sometimes we even do it to ourselves.

Of course... neither Pence or Trump will be going in the journey, so why do they need to waste time and money on things life safety? After all, any- and every-one apart from the aforementioned two are expendable and replaceable.

ok, I was not totally clear on that point, my bad. :)
The focus with that sentence was not on what the employee does in their own time, but rather what they do during their contracted employment hours.
Apologies for the confusion.

Daylighting. Some companies (Google, for example) embrace it, while others try to stamp it out.

Does the employee contract state that working on outside projects is not allowed, on company equipment and/or on company time?
Does the contract state that anything external that the employee works on automatically becomes IP of the company (good luck with trying to enforce that in some countries)?
The employee contract usually defines responsibilities for both the employee and the employer. Using the employee contract to enforce behaviour on the part of the employee can be problematic if the employee has a good lawyer versed in employment law on their speed-dial, and will often result in a shit storm for all parties that does nobody any favours (except for the lawyers).

In most cases, working on outside projects will be grounds for some kind of disciplinary process, but if the employee is valued then asking them why they are daylighting. Look at whether they are completing projects/meeting targets on time, and whether you are happy for the employee to walk away.

I would say that the supervisor was probably 100% honest and totally ok with it. He then goes to HR and asks what kind of support they can give, and the HR troll hits the kill switch. Although the idea that a cryptographer for a defence contractor would be granted remote access to the systems they would need to do their job is an interesting one from a security perspective.

Of course, it could be that the supervisor is a wet blanket who cannot handle conflict, plays the sympathetic boss and then runs to the HR girl to get her to do the shitty thing. She is then pissed at the supervisor for putting her in that position, and takes it out on the candidate.

HR might also be pissed at both supervisor and candidate that the wife's terminal cancer diagnosis has obviously not been mentionned at all during the interview process - as a candidate in that position, I would be tempted to keep quiet about it unless the cancer was so advanced that my wife had only a couple of months to live, in which case I pretty much have to 'fess up to it at an interview - "look, my wife has terminal stomach cancer, and has at most a few months. During that time, I am her out-of-hours carer so if OOH work is required, I would need to tackle that from home".
From the HR perspective, if that vital information was not forthcoming during interview, what else is there to come out, and is this candidate suddenly a bad risk? At the very least, will the candidate need extensive bereavement leave that was not anticipated during the hiring, or will this go on for an extended period because the wife hangs on for years rather than weeks/months (not likely with stomach cancer, but that is not an evaluation HR can make). It should still be handled professionally and with compassion, rather than by going postal on the guy, but the interview and candidate evaluation process is the stage where all such issues need to be raised.

On balance, and from my experience as a supervisor and working with HR, I would say that the supervisor was probably being honest and that the HR woman was either being a bitch or was pissed that the limitation didn't come out during the interview stage and just did not handle the situation well.

The way that I read the article (sorry for not following /. tradition) is that you have a central grocery distribution point within the apartment building, condo complex or similar, and in those situations it could work, and becomes more viable the larger the apartment building/complex. For small apartment buildings, or for people who live in houses, it would almost certainly not be viable or workable.
Doing it the "other way" - you order online via and the groceries are shipped from a warehouse using some combination of delivery process that includes autonomous drones/vehicles for "last mile" service would work for all cases but is not much more efficient than current solutions and is prone to package loss/damage.

When you have a situation where each party is blaming the other, the cause is almost always a lack of effective communication by BOTH sides.
If each thinks that the other is responsible, then neither has successfully articulated their opinions to the other.
As an IT person, I do not mind being given the responsibility for handling cyber attacks, as long as I am also given the express authority that "handling" will require, and the budget to provision security and prevention measures.
Of course, I am not going to get the budget that I ask for, no department head ever does. But then my acceptance of that budget comes with the written caveat that a reduced budget directly impacts my ability to "handle" cyber incidents and will increase the risk of successful attacks or sub-optimal mitigation of attacks.