I think the vast majority of sane people realize that it's normal for world/societal views to change after major events. It's a strange view to take that things should just be a shrug of the shoulders and a 'business as usual' attitude... but that may explain some things in itself.

Go back to the 9/11 example. How much better off would the US -- to say nothing of the rest of the world -- be, if we'd just shrugged off the 9/11 attacks as unique criminal acts by deranged cultists, rather than a military event that called for multi-trillion-dollar wars?

Surface is also "supply constrained." Stuff the retail channel with a 100-unit pilot build of anything, and gee, surprise, it will sell out.

Also, the original-crust Hawaiian BBQ Chicken from California Pizza Kitchen is way better than the Nissan GT-R.

There's something to be said in favor of not letting insane people dictate the laws that the rest of us have to follow.

But I guess that's pre-9/11, pre-Sandy Hook, pre-Dunblane, pre-Oklahoma City thinking, huh.

I dunno, I got a business to run here, and only so much space in inventory. Lemme call a buddy of mine who's an expert on overpriced dot-coms.

Yeah and The Great Caesar should rule as Emperor with his advisors since the mob are so stupid, ignorant and easily deluded?

Yeah, and... that's how it works already. We just don't acknowledge it.

If the public do that they get what they deserve. That's a pretty weak argument.

Arguments made directly from the pages of history books are not by definition "weak." They reflect things that have actually happened. The burden of proof lies on the party who maintains that they cannot or will not happen again.

What next you're going to argue against "normal people" having the right to vote, because they will make stupid decisions?

I'm already about 90% on board with that. There is no rational argument for my vote to carry the same weight as that of someone with twice my life experience and/or IQ.

No, that was Mitreya. I merely answered the question s/he posed. :)

Then why bother complaining at all?

(Shrug) Without their work, the advertisers don't have a platform. There are many ways to monetize content, but only a few ways to sell soap.

The power to say 'No' to that bullshit is in the hands of the content producers, and, ultimately, the viewers. The content producers don't care enough to lift a finger. That leaves us.

At first glance, the dancing cartoon characters and excessive commercial breaks seem like a supply-side problem. The fact that the show's producers and writers tolerate this sort of thing is a sign that you, as their audience, are very far from the top of their minds when they come to work each day. They clearly harbor the same disrespect for their own craft that they have for your time. Seems simple enough.

On the other hand, the fact that you, as their audience, keep watching their shows, is one that I don't have a ready explanation for.

My only guess is that some people just don't value their limited time here on Earth as much as they should. Either switch to Netflix, use torrents, or sell your TV on Craigslist for a bag of horse. Any of these things will be a better use of your time than watching network TV.

There should already be a default inability to track your car based on the same logic that I'm not allowed to place a bug on your car and track you now

Exactly. However, this was Tesla's car all along, so they were perfectly free to track it. The NYT did not own the car.

Article is pointless clickbait. No one is arguing that they should be able to track your car, only their car.

(Shrug) Musk hasn't lied to me before. The NYT has, and at a monstrous cost.

Unfortunately we only have Broder's word on that, and he has proven to be a bit of an unreliable narrator.

It would help a great deal if Tesla were to release recordings of his support calls.

Yes, the telephone was obvious. Anytime the issue is decided by a foot race to the patent office, you are dealing with something that would have emerged in due time without any artificial patent incentives.

Patents should be reserved for cases where the invention is (a) very expensive to develop and bring to market, and (b) otherwise vulnerable to being guarded as a trade secret, in a way that would harm progress in the field if not disclosed. The telephone doesn't count, and neither do most software and business-method patents.