I've often said that we've had the tech for self steering since the 1800s, and that really reduces the tech needed for self driving, as you have pointed out here.

I still will go ahead and spend my karma pointing out (as I have done previously) that we could be building PRT on an ultralight rail to make use of these technologies on a scale similar to existing automobiles, and even keeping the automobile companies in the loop on it, but big oil won't have it because it makes it easy to cut out the fossil fuels and also the tires, which are mostly made from oil as well. You can have all the same advantages of cars, plus some, and also have most of the advantages of trains. But no, everyone wants the illusion of freedom (that evaporates immediately as soon as the road is damaged by weather or a landslide, or clogged by a pileup.)

A citation and logic. Both are pretty neato in my book.

What do you have besides insults and appeals to authority which don't even come with the identities of the supposed authorities?

I googled "stellantis level 2 driver assistance reads road signs -stla" (I added that last on there to avoid getting a shitload of stories about the cancellation this story is about) and the top result is about the Jeep Compass and how it can read road signs. Learn to internet, bro.

Why do you think the cars you've driven are relevant?

Because speed limits can be changed faster than the database gets updated.

You fell for the demo?

They only even claimed it worked up to 37 mph, and further only claimed it would work up to 59 mph. Nobody had to place this condition on them, they placed it.

There is essentially unlimited demand for this technology when it works.

There is no demand for the technology if it does not work.

What they are telling us is that it does not work.

Given that it's Stellantis, it comes as even less than no surprise.

All product makers oppose that, because it would be sales suicide when found out, and because it would also make the device less secure and that's a point of competition.

But on the flip side, if any of them were required to do it, it could be illegal for them to tell us about it. So Apple and Google and anyone else too could actually be doing it while shouting about how it's a bad idea, and we wouldn't be allowed to know.

Bullshit. Do they not have Google on your planet?

If Microsoft has them, they aren't sovereign.

At least it's local and offline.

I hear a local burger and hot dog joint in Fortuna CA was saved by being sold and is now successful again. I spoke with the prior owner on several occasions because I was working on his trailers (that was my prior job) and he was planning to close it because he allegedly couldn't afford to pay the cooks.

And that's great, but it mostly affects some high school students in one town and just a few employees, so there's no reason for anyone else to care.

At the big corporate level, M&A really do always seem to be harmful, with both employees and customers suffering. And I don't think it's unreasonable to blame not only the influence of venture capital, but also the existence of rapid trading and stock buybacks. Stock purchases should be investments, not just a game played with numbers.

Oh, stop. Some life around deep ocean vents will be fine ;)

It really is crazy how people don't get that our species has (and others also have) enjoyed a temporary period of relative stasis, and we have disturbed that condition with our activities. I once would have thought the rapid loss of species would convince people, but obviously I now see that depends on people knowing things.

"It says EU laws -- which have sought to make it easier for smaller firms to compete with big tech -- have resulted in some Apple features and enhancements being delayed for European users"

Restrictions are not features for users, despite many hostages' Stockholm syndromes to the contrary.

"So unless your sport involve ZERO upper and lower body strength, it makes sense to separate sports by sex"

Per your own logic this is based on the importance of strength only. Therefore this assertion only makes sense if it's a sport where dexterity cannot make up for strength.

You don't know what Ad Hominem is.

It is NOT insulting people.

It is where you say an idea is wrong because someone said it. It may also be accompanied by an insult to attempt to support the argument.

When someone says only an idiot would believe something and then explains why, that is not Ad Hominem. It's just an argument with an insult next to it.

Feel free to object to the insult, but don't make shit up.

I've had lambic, no clue on whether it was authentic or not, I didn't enjoy it though. But I still don't think it's bad, it's just not for me.