Tesla FSD is already better than most drivers.
How much better do you think it should be before we let it take over from humans who kill thousands on the road every year?

The current version is Tesla FSD is a much better driver than most people.
We need to come to terms with the fact that self driving cars are (or will be) better drivers than most people on the road who are easily distracted, don't stay between the lines, drive drunk, don't do a full stop at stop signs and run into the car in front of them.
Yesterday I drove 70 miles on a combination of local roads, secondary highways and divided highway using Tesla FSD. The performed flawlessly. It stopped at signs and lights, and was always exactly between the lines. Performed right and left turns safely into traffic. Kept proper following distance and followed the speed limits exactly. It was much better than my driving.
Driver assistance systems already have a better safety record than most drivers.
How much better do they need to get?

Unreasonable search and seizure... you need a search warrant.

Without a search warrant?

Erm, for Apple to do modular RAM, all they need to do is NOT solder the chips in. We've had modular systems for years (DIMMs). Apple has deliberately chosen not to use them because if it's easy to upgrade a computer with a new SSD and some RAM, how can they justify charging $500 more for the same model with more RAM and a larger SSD.

Contrary to popular opinion, 8 GB is more than enough for most people on Windows, for someone on a Mac where they do even less it should be plenty.

I think the bigger issue that firing them over this was legal. In most developed countries this isn't or at the very least, would require a hearing with the industrial relations authority.

Then again, in the rest of the developed world, protesting against your employer is usually done in the form of resignation.

Shhhh, stop that, you're interfering with the HAMAS propaganda they're parroting.

BVR is all good and well until the enemy is no longer BVR.

This can easily happen on the battlefield if enough forces are arrayed of if intelligence is not there (Is military intel never wrong on the planet where you live). It makes sense to plan for this eventuality.

The Gulf war was a time where the US had both total air superiority and vast technological superiority. I'd be a bit more concerned about a country that can send a few hundred J-20s up in a sortie. Ukraine is a situation where both sides have total AA coverage from the ground.

In the long term, they were kind of right, automatic weapons lead to tactics to counter automatic weapons which emphasised cover and avoiding fire. No longer do we arrange troops into neat little lines and march them towards the enemy as we did in the grand old days.

This is one reason why you should never keep your money in one place, or even one format. This is why rich people don't even keep much of their cash in the same country.

LoL, no. the most straightforward approach to safeguarding homes and persons is to have a society where people aren't forced into crime due to systemic poverty. Amazing isn't it, prevention always works better than cure.

Castle doctrine only results in it being abused as murders aren't investigated so you can literally get away with murder by making sure it occurs on your own property. This is the kind of law that favours the criminal by giving them carte blanche

As a UK resident trained in self defence, being arrested as a matter of procedure is a good thing and were I ever in a situation where I had to defend myself I'd happily go along with it. Being "arrested" is a bit of a misnomer because it conjures up images of being dragged off in chains by a sneering bobby where as in reality it's more of a "Sir, we need you to come to the station with us to make an official statement". Being arrested does not mean you're automatically charged with anything, when you stop reading the Daily Mail you'll quickly find out that most people aren't even charged because the self defence, defence is so bleeding obvious it's just not worth anyone's time.

There are two main reasons and one minor one why I'd completely co-operate with the Rozzers if I ever had to violently defend myself.
1. I'll be pretty badly shaken up and you'd be completely retarded if you weren't. I'd likely have a minor injury as well. Cops in the UK will have someone at the station trained to help you or at the very least offer you a cup of tea.
2. It lets me get my story straight (as an act of self defence) from the very start and very much on the record. If it ever goes to court, this is a huge advantage for anyone claiming self defence. Conversely if I didn't co-operate with the police it would look quite bad in the eyes of a judge or possibly even a jury.

And the minor one.
3. Whoever I beat up or harm might come back with a few mates looking for payback, I'd rather not be there if they do.

The actual law on self defence in the United Kingdom is considerably less alarmist than the tabloids would have you believe. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime. The other big misconception is "reasonable force == no more force than absolutely necessary" where as in reality the law understands that under such a stressful situation people cannot be relied upon to know exactly how much force to apply, so there's a lot of leeway, the excessive force clause is only there for things that are very, very egregious (I.E. striking them a few times unnecessarily is not considered excessive, taking them outside for a curbstomp is). Generally the only "gotcha" is if the perp is trying to escape, let them. Don't chase after them. If you do then it's two counts of assault and you only get to claim self defence for one.

So a 2.5t SUV that guzzles petrol should pay the same amount of tax as a 1L city hatchback that sips fuel?

Heavier cars do a lot more damage to the road than lighter cars, it far closer to an exponential difference than a linear one. Fuel is one of the easier ways of targeting people who drive overweight cars.

The reality is, they're switching to public cloud offerings like Azure, AWS or GPC because even though they're more expensive, they're less expensive than the price rises.

I see you haven't met many MBA's. To them the guy with 20 years of experience is a massive cost centre that can be replaced by 2 hires in India with no loss of productivity.