The articles quotes are strange, but he is not wrong.

It is obvious that robot drivers will not be perfect. They will at some point make a decision that will result in human death.

But if they reduce total deaths no one will be particularly concerned. I certainly won't. And if they do not tremendously reduce total deaths they will not be allowed on the road.

The only reason they are being tested is that humans are horrible drivers and kill many people all the time.

The problem is the per capita use is the WRONG metric. By far. You do not get to just pick the one that makes them look good. That would be like saying New York City is doing the best in polar bear attacks.

China is a country that can be divided into two sections - a huge number of poor that make 1% of the C02 and the elite, that make far MORE coal than the average western person.

You should not get a free pass for your elite because you mistreat your poor.

China is the world's largest emitter in total. They produce 35% of the total carbon emissions. Merely because you also have a bunch of poor people doing nothing does not excuse you abusing the crap out of the atmosphere.

More importantly, if all the westerners you compare them to are doing better every year while they are doing worse, then THEY ARE THE PROBLEM.

I do agree that there are some issues with the west calling them out - but they are definitely the problem now.

Restaurants are hard businesses to run. Bad reviews kill your business quickly.

I do not ever use door dash. But I do use Yelp. I used to love a place called Bobby Van's Steak house. But when I saw reviews under 4 stars, I picked a new steak house.

As for the $0 fee - that only happens if you refuse to use their service. You can sign up for a massive fee and they offer things like advertising and better delivery.

It's not one thing, it's both combined. Either you give away your profit or you get bad reviews, or you give away your profit AND get bad reviews.

The United States and Europe already lowering carbon emissions. Their charts are going down, which is what we need.

Asia is the problem. The worst by far is China, followed by India and Indonesia. They continue to increase carbon emissions (as do much of the smaller Asian countries with the exception of Japan).

Most of the rest of the world is mostly holding steady.

How did Europe and the US do it? Mature economies that switched to non-fossil fuels. Hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc. China and India are still trying to grow their economy and they cannot seem to do it on just the good stuff. So they add coal even while also adding add solar and wind.

10 years ago the US was the second largest coal burner (after China). We cut our coal use by half, while China has gone up by 10%, India almost doubled, and Indonesia is up by about 50%.

Hard to tell poor people just trying to live a better life that they have to sacrifice because of how horrible the US and Europe used to be.

But the problem IS solveable - as demonstrated by Europe and the US.

The companies like door dash etc do not care if you do not deliver. They list you anyway, pay full price for the food, slap a 35% fee on top and sell your food.

The the customer who gets cold food calls you upset. You have to explain that we do not deliver and they do not care.

They leave a bad review. You post explaining the situation. Takes a month to deal with.

Meanwhile you sue Door Dash, they take you down, then Uber eats signs you up. and whole thing stars all over again.

If Microsoft has access until 2032, does that mean the crash will happen in 2031? Or 2033?

Your passport number is all that really matters. Everything else is just for the plebes, when you interact with the TSA or other government agencies, the number gets checked against the government records which gives back a photo along with the other information. The issuing country tracks everything by that number, but that's not the end of it.

When you go abroad, they take a photo of you and your passport and put it in a database, using your country plus passport # as the real id. Now that new country starts to track you too.

Spies really hate this because it means that once they go to a country they really can't go back to it using a different name. The computer would match up your new false identity with the photo they took of you with the old identification.

Who wants to bet that the IRS suddenly has a massive drop in taxes paid by small businesses this year.

Because receipts are a lot more important to the IRS than to corporations, and the current leadership is NOT very interested in investigating fraud by business men.

Wow. You are so cool. I mean, your ability to take an intelligently written argument, think about who could have made it, then insult them, all in such few words.

It is amazing.

All without countering a single thing said.

You should be a politician. Or a 9th grader

You are wrong on several factors. First, the worst nuclear reactors we have built are FAR safer than coal power plants. Every single coal power plant has indirectly killed more people than the worst nuclear reactor.

By any reasonable standard, quick and dirty cheap nuclear reactors are safer than coal. Which is what this is designed to replace. There is no information about this reactor cutting corners. The US has not done that in 30 years. The Soviet Union did, but we are not them.

But more importantly, this is NOT a quick, dirty or cheap nuclear reactor. It is a slow, clean and expensive nuclear reactor that has taken more time, more approval and more money than any non-nuclear power plant (because they all do) and most nuclear reactors.

As for me, I don't know who you think I voted for or even understand your 28 credible ???? childen, etc.

If you are wondering, my next vote is going to be for Mamdani.

Average Nuclear reactors are 1 GW, so this is about 35% size of existing plants, with a heat bank to temporarily boost it up to 85% output when needed.

Most people consider Small Modular Reactors to be no larger than about 300 MW, so this is a bit to large to count as a modular one, especially considering the heat bank.

But it is a wonderful NEW design that has been properly tested by a man I think cares more about the environment than making money on nuclear power.

Sounds like a good idea to me, I hope it works out.

This was designed and sent for approval before Trump won the election. Bill Gates is known to be careful, at least outside of software.

It is NOT being rapidly built to meet short term AI Data Center demand, but instead being tested to replace the old coal power plants.

Does that mean it is definitely safe? No. Does it mean it won't be used to meet AI demand? Almost certainly it will be used for AI demand.

But you are misrepresenting the actual situation.

I have heard several claims that the only real jobs the AI can cut are Middle Management jobs. AI is supposedly really good 95% of the time for their work, and the 5% of time they get it wrong, good Upper Management can stop the problem before it gets too big.

Some people say it can also do it for upper management with the CEO acting as the break. But no one seriously thinks upper management is going to replace themselves.

That changes as you get older, turning about 50% of men over 60, and every 5 years goes down by another 10%.

The real problem is not the % of men deemed unattractive, but how it is defined. (I am using rough percentages, here)

80% of female attractiveness is how much they try. Weight, hair, makeup, clothing, mannerisms etc. 20% is not controllable by the woman. Bone structure, etc. Plastic Surgery works pretty well for women. End result, the pretty women are those that want it bad enough and does the hard work (about an hour a day) to make themselves pretty. Yes, not all women can do this, but most can.

But male attractiveness is the other way around: 20% based on how hard you try and 80% not controllable by the men. Height, status, money are mostly determined by your parents. The wrong genetics and upbringing and you are average intelligence, short, OR do not like conflict (he has no confidence....). To be really attractive you need to be above average intelligence, above average height, and the right personality. Plastic surgery does little to make men more attractive to women.

This results: the pretty women are the ambitious ones while the handsome men were just lucky. As men get older, the nice attractive men get married and stay that way. By the time a man is 40, most of the attractive men are either not interested in settling down except with a bisexual supermodel that knows how to cook and is willing to share her girlfriend, or are total a-holes that no one can bare to spend time with.

Women (both attractive and not) date these attractive men and think all men are a-holes, all the while refusing to go out with the short OR poor OR low quality job. A short, poor janitor has no chance, no matter how wonderful a husband he would be.

There is a reason why taller men get married earlier, and taller women get married later.

1) There has been no study that the current rule does anything. They just made it up. For all we know, the current rule CAUSES more accidents than it prevents. This is not medically tested science, but just someone that said '4 paces', and then later clarified that to mean 3 meters/10 ft.

2) The current rule allows for the use of road flares as warning devices, that last... 30 minutes. When they go out, no additional warning devices are required. Yeah, this is not the safest or well thought or tested rule. Just some thing a random guy wrote.

3) The company already did a study and 'proved' that it is safer. . That is how they 'know' the lights are more visible than cones. That study was a simple one of try and see, rather than a good one, but so what.

4) The problem is not the 'warning devices', the government is fine with the lights on the car. Instead the issue is the multiple lines about placement, requiring them not to be a certain distance from the vehicle. Which again, the original rule used PACES as the measurement.

I am not saying a study should not be made. I am saying that a reasonable agency could have looked at the rule, said 'this is just some crap a guy made up with no science', and given a limited testing exemption of some kind for say 100 trucks.