I am confident because I have seen and analyzed the observational data myself. What is it that you want from me? Do you want me to try to persuade you with logic that goes back to premises that we don't agree on? That would be arrogant of me. What use is logic when premises are ignored?

That's why it's good to have absolute numbers, like at census.gov. The National Academy has been citing the data for years with tons of insightful research into which policies are more or less fair. When you have absolute numbers, it is really easy to define fair and equal. Hint: it involves an equals sign.

This is the scientific way to measure fairness, as opposed to the political way of controlling the visibility of contexts to make an argument. Every question you raised rhetorically has a scientific answer that is waiting for you in data that is already freely available, and thousands of people research this, and no one listens to them. It is frustrating to see this. We need fewer lawyers and more scientists in politics.

Neural networks are just tools. There is a huge amount of Natural Intelligence going into Artificial Intelligence, and that is going to be true for a long time. The psychological layer interfaces with a very complex physiological layer, and artificial intelligence is a very long way off from solving those problems. Most of it isn't even going in the right direction. A very select portion of the field is even aware of this kind of issue. I have been talking about it for 15 years, and there is only one thing I have seen so far that is even going in the right direction. Everything else is basically a next-gen statistical approach.

I tried to do the comparison with only one operand. I keep getting an error: "expected expression before ';' token".

Next time, address my clear intention. And again, please do it after reviewing actual data on the subject.

The cruising aspect would be too much of a problem. Can't have a bunch of slow cars driving around. You could just have ZipCar allow cars to be parked in random spots, but only if someone else has agreed to take responsibility for it, otherwise you will have parking ticket issues. But anyway, there seems to be a lot of room for improvement without needing to have 100% automation. Maybe have ZipCar negotiate parking with the city, and a small fleet of people move ZipCars around to where demand is higher.

I think the 100% automation goal is basically a fundraising tactic, since you can tie valuation to the 100% automation assumption. But it is a lot further off than people think. Meanwhile, Amazon is going to be making real, incremental improvements, and not making a big deal about 100% automation, because they just automate what makes sense at any given moment. But Amazon is much more smooth at convincing people that they will be ahead in the end, without needing to trump up this 100% automation claim.

I think Uber thought that they could trump up 100% automation, and use the funds to leverage their way into China, and then realized that economic forces are greater than their imagination. Now they are getting hit with reality day after day. In software, we are used to being divorced from physical limitations, and it seems that Uber is a prime example of the software mentality going a step too far.

They are complaining because their employer is violating the law. Can people not do that anymore?

It is easy to seem entitled when claiming something entitled do you by law. The whole point of laws overriding contracts is because of the leverage problem Adam Smith pointed out in On The Wages of Labor, and continually reaffirmed by the problem of indentured servitude.

The founding documents of capitalism are public domain. Please read them. Then you will understand. These kinds of struggles have been a well-documented aspect of history for centuries. Scientific datasets have been available for centuries. I understand that people aren't generally educated in this history, but it is very easily accessible these days.

It gives me a sense of faith in humanity to see that the generation after me is asserting their rights.

They want things to be fair. Things are currently not in their favor. I refer you to census.gov American Community Survey. Take a look at the data before you speak, please.

That is all years away. Thank about it.

"Self-driving" is still going to be driver-assist for a very long time. They are still going to need "drivers" for years, and with the vast number of drivers out there, the politics of allowing vehicles to be driverless is going to be very difficult.

I am all for driver-assist technologies to optimize the base case, but a human will be handling edge cases much better for a long time, especially with driver-assist technologies to help. That is, the tech should optimize the physics problems, and the human should optimize the decision problems. I think a lot of people are going to feel that way for a long time, at least until the infrastructure is actually adapted for automation, rather than humans.

We already have vastly cheaper modes of interstate shipping and travel available in the form of trains, and if money were invested in high-speed rail instead, it would have a far better impact, because it would actually reduce the need for drivers, and be faster than trucks.

There are also a lot of delivery services, and it will take years for the porch delivery aspect to be automated. It is still far cheaper to have a human do that.

Done that. What I found was that political parties are private organizations with political monopolies. You can become a member of one, but all that does is provide them with a mandate. If you find success locally, the national level just funds your opponents.

I agree that it is almost certainly selective altruism, but I think that most altruism is selective in exactly the way I think you mean. But personally, Tim Cook did have a long history of being private about his personal life, having waited until a very demanding time to bring it up. The privacy issue itself came up in a very demanding time. It seems to fit him in this case. But then, I am not the best at reading between the lines, so there is that.

Human traits do propagate to businesses run by humans. Greed is often one of those traits. However, a desire to do good can also be one of those traits. I am not saying that we should inherently trust Tim. I am saying that we shouldn't undermine his argument by assuming that he is being insincere. Accuse him of being a hypocrite for not being concerned about other ethical problems, but the argument that he makes should be evaluated on its merits.

You are right. Cities shouldn't be involved in infrastructure. Wait, what?

- Major medical bills eat $1000 bills for breakfast

If you have $1000 cash, negotiating a major medical bill just became a whole lot easier, especially since balance billing is usually involved.

I keep seeing this statement, but it is only partly true. They ARE counted, BUT in the same group as not voting for anyone, because the number of returned ballots is counted. Just subtract the vote totals from the vote returns, and you get all of the write-ins and blanks. That actually gives write-ins a slight bias. Actually, WHO returned the ballot is recorded, and that data is rock solid because political parties depend on it.