To fool the system you just need to hang a weight from the steering wheel, or have the guy in the passenger seat tap the wheel every 30 seconds or so.

As long as Tesla insists on telling people the car can fully drive itself, some people will take them at their word, even if it means fooling the system to do so.

I was one of the adamant supporters of the term "autopilot" when so many called that wording dangerous. I believed, and still do, that autopilot correctly conveyed what the system was capable of. Many people however blamed Tesla in previous crashed because they thought autopilot made it sound like self driving when it wasn't.

Yet now that Tesla is actually calling it "full self driving", all those criticisms seem to have vanished, despite the fact that Tesla had not released a vehicle capable of driving itself, and crucially, Tesla have even admitted that the current generation of vehicles on the road will NEVER be capable of driving themselves without an attentive human driver behind the wheel.

Tesla's marketing department owns these deaths. If the people in the car didn't think it could drive itself, they never would have been in a moving vehicle with nobody at the wheel.

Maybe they should also stop calling it "full self driving" on the sales sheet if the car can't drive itself...

They don't care if they are hated. They only care if people purchase their stuff. And all evidence shows that the 2 things aren't related as people don't seem to have stopped buying Sony stuff.

If it sent a packet to an origin completely unrelated to the content I asked for, I don't really need to see inside the packet, I can have a pretty good idea that it's not for my benefit.

Boarding a train happens to multiple doors simultaneously, making the whole boarding process take dramatically shorter time than on an airplane. Additionally train tickets often include your assigned seat. And I've never seen a train oversold the way airplanes are routinely. As a result I would say your seat is guaranteed on the train, but never on the airplane. As for driving to and from, train stations tend to be right in the center of cities where people already want to go, whereas airports are on the outskirts requiring additional transportation into the city, in this context ironically that's usually a train.

When talking about scheduling flexibility, trains generally win out in this department. There are usually more frequent trains than there are planes, and you can generally walk straight into a station and onto the train, whereas for the plane you have to deal with all the check-in and security BS. When you add in the fact that trains tend to go closer to the most popular destinations (inside of cities, instead of on the outskirts like airports) it's a wonder anyone would ever consider a flight when there's a train that can get you there in two and a half hours or less.

Realistically, I suspect the end result of this will be very minor changes. I suspect very few people would fly those routes anyway, and those that do are probably just doing it out of habit and haven't checked the train schedule in decades. If they knew the train went that way, they probably wouldn't want to take the airplane, as planes tend to be less convenient, more expensive, and less comfortable.

By the time you deal with all the BS at airports these days, it is extremely difficult to find a flight that takes less than two and a half hours (total time, not flight time). So if you have to take a train for two and a half hours, it's exceedingly unlikely that you could get there by plane faster. This is exaggerated even more by the fact that airports tend to be a long way from the places most people want to go, which is usually the center of the city. Whereas trains generally go right into the center of the city reducing the final commute on both ends.

Someone didn't read the summary, this only applies to flights where the train can get there in two and a half hours or less. By the time you add all the BS at security these days plus boarding etc, your flight is highly unlikely to be any faster.

Google currently does allow disabling of third-party cookies. However this proposal makes it quite clear that they intend to leave the switch in there but completely disable what it does.

Because currently the biggest third party cookie blockers are the browsers themselves. And I heard a little rumor that Google wrote one of those.

I work in the medical field. I avoid jargon whenever possible. I've gotten a few weird looks from other professionals when I use plain language instead of jargon, but when I ask if I was at all unclear they always have to admit that I was clear, and often comment that it was refreshing. But even more importantly, those that use jargon a lot can often get caught using it wrong. People love to use lots of precision by using jargon, but it's often more precision than actually exists. For your broken bone analogy, I've seen paramedics day the person has a broken tibia, but they haven't x-rayed it, so it could turn out to be both bones, not just the one, or in some cases turn out to be a joint problem instead. They wanted to sound smart using the jargon, but ended up looking stupid because they were really just guessing. Had they kept it to the patient's complaint that there's pain to the lower leg and that they can't put any weight on it, they would have been more accurate, while still using language anyone can understand.

No. It doesn't sound reasonable. It's impossible to police, and we've seen many examples of people abusing it.
If we're making exceptions for specific animals, we need to be very clear on which ones those are. Otherwise we might as well just allow all pets.

This is not a technological failure, the technology to generate power without generating large amounts of dangerous waste exsts. No, it's a failure of bureaucracy. The only reason "waste" is dangerous is because it still emits energy, which means you could still use it in a power plant instead of just storing it. The technology to harness that energy exists, but governments and NIMYs have been blocking it for ages.

I knew a blind person who "trained (their) own service dog". The dog was not at all well behaved, and was an extremely rambunctious puppy. But because this was a "service dog" everyone had to pretend it wasn't in the process of defecating in the corner of the restaurant and then jumping up on the table. THOSE are the people who give "service dogs" a bad name.
I just can't grasp how there isn't any form of official licensing required for service dogs. We make so many exceptions to rules for them, and yet ANYBODY can claim their pet is actually a service animal and get around the laws that prohibit animals in all sorts of places where animals just don't belong.