Shell wasn't the one who burned the gasoline and produced the CO2, that was you and me
Yes and no. It's true that "we" are burning all of the oil and gas, and are responsible for the demand. But oil companies themselves emit around 15% of all greenhouse gases in the process of producing, transporting and refining oil, before they sell it to us. That's not an insignificant amount, and perhaps there's a lot of room for further improvement. They already stopped practices like flaring off that pesky natural gas that is produced along with oil.
The same goes for the manufacturers of concrete: they emit a lot of CO2 in the process... but only do so to satisfy our need for the stuff.
Zoox doesn't have a steering wheel or pedals. You do not have control of it (except for the emergency red stop button).
Right now, Zoox can not even deviate from a hardcoded preprogrammed route, so it's a long ways to be true self-driving either.
Notice how the routes it does in San Francisco or in Vegas are always the same circuits.
Getting a DUI on it wouldn't make any sense.
can you get an dui in one / who (under the law) is deemed in control?
This hasn't been tested yet legally.
However, if operator guidance is needed (autodrive levels 1, 2, and 3, driver must remain engaged), then you are operating the vehicle and can be charged.
For levels 4 and 5, if you're behind the wheel and could turn off the autodrive features, legal opinion is that you can still be charged (you're effectively in control).
If you're not in the driver's seat and the car is level 4 and 5 (and autodriving), then there's a strong legal argument that you're not operating the vehicle and can't be charged.
(And note that if you're autodriving, there should be no reason for the cop to pull you over in the first place.)
IANAL, this is just something I researched awhile ago.
the whole purpose of the Darwin Awards was to recognize people who, through their own stupidity, removed themselves from the gene pool.
No, that's most of the point, but definitely isn't the whole point.
Some of the point is to make fun of people for doing something stupid. They don't have to die or be prevented from reproducing, for their stupidity to provide smug entertainment.
This'll be a fun exercise, I suppose, and will generate some laughs.
Ah, you do get it.
Like there is any debate is horrific.
Let's do a thought problem.
For any issue where you're sure you're right, note the number of people who have a different opinion.
Suppose the number of people with a different opinion is excessively large, say more than 5% of the population. They have access to the same information that you do, but have come to a different position.
Given that situation, what does that say about your position, and whether debate itself is horrific?
(null cookie; hope that's ok)