A good rule of thumb is never to swerve to avoid an animal. This should be the default. The risk to human life is too great, generally. The unpredictable always occurs. In individual situations, there may be enough time or sufficiently low risk that swerving reduces all damage. But the bias for not swerving should be so strong that leaving your lane abruptly should be a final choice, not an early or first choice. When you and those you share the road with finally die of old age, there will be enough gratitude among everyone to compensate for the odd blown tire.

Equal pay for equal work is utopian nonsense since there is no way to a) gauge work effort, and b) work is an input not an output. Better: equal pay for equal value. Most employers understand this implicitly. Case in point, women Uber drivers 'work' their auto and their calls just like men, but don't make as much per hour. They are not doing the valuable work that men are.

Ms Schmitter has committed the "No True Scotsman" fallacy by stating that "If the project is being managed correctly..." which essentially means that if the project manager gets the proper results, than the project manager will get the proper results. Or nonsense. As a retired project manager, I agree with all the other Slashdot comments about how projects and teams go right or wrong. Those anecdotes are all valid. Just don't say that project management done right produces projects done right.

By living on this planet, we have bound our fate to it. We have already fallen off the 40-storey ledge and, on our way down to the pavement, are attempting to change the height of the building.

The Constitution protects the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it does not grant them or, in your words, "afford...the citizens" these rights. Most of the essential rights: expression, thought, self-defense, freedom from molestation, etc., are "pre-political" and existed before and in the absence of the government.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

I feel like I've just read an elaborate rant against the interface equivalent of comic sans. Short version: I just don't like it.

Doesn't anybody--especially you mathematicians and physicist--have problems with using multipliers to scale smallness? How can anything be six times closer to anything else. Surely the writer means 1/6 as close. I know that's not as easy on the ears, but is sure is "more" correct, or perhaps six times less wrong.

This phenomenon is a corollary of teaching to the test, where teachers and schools are criticized for only teaching things that will appear on a standardized test. Of course, this is nonsense. If a topic is important enough to be taught, it is also important enough to be (with non-trivial probability) on the test. Or said differently, if it's not important enough to be on the test, why are you teaching it? In reality, if it's important enough to be on the test, it should be taught. Therefore, all teachers should teach to a test that contains questions about all relevant topics. Likewise, customer rating subjects should reflect actual performance criteria. If it's not on the customer satisfaction survey, it is not important on the job, and vice versa. The problem here is actually that the scoring scheme is bizarre and unknown to the test taker/satisfaction survey taker. There is nothing wrong with a well-formed satisfaction survey. The giant fault is with the scoring system and how it is used. Don't throw out the baby and keep the bath water.