It has nothing to do with being cowards, they are robots. It's a case of saving a little money at the expense of being excluded from a lot of money.

Piracy laws are very effective... for curbing intentional piracy in businesses because they have too much to lose to break laws like these and they are basically robots with instructions to follow the law.

But they won't outlaw these, what they'd do is prohibit companies that use them from government work/contracts and the government gives away WAY too much of our money to give that up.

Crashes are now rare in general. When I was a kid, it seemed like there was a major air crash in the US almost annually. I may be wrong, but I don't remember a full-sized airliner (bigger than a regional jet) having a catastrophic crash in the US since shortly after 9/11 when that Airbus lost its tail and crashed in NYC. (Being a natural pessimist, I find this outcome hard to believe and would have lost a good deal of money if I had bet on it.)

However, there still continue to be a large number of hard landings, runway slideoffs, engine fires, cabin fires and other emergency situations where the passengers still need to evacuate quickly because their lives are at risk. (Not to mention the "Miracle on the Hudson".) The safety briefings are still relevant in all those situations.

is why I'm sticking to just toggle switches and blinking lights.

I don't know why your reading comprehension is so bad. I would have totally preferred it if any of them knew how to drive a manual or wanted to learn how. But they didn't. How does that make *me* sexist?

The biggest deterrent: Girlfriends and/or wives. They don't know how to operate one, and they have zero interest in learning how. Now you have all sorts of logistical problems.

America will retake the lead in AI the same way we did with EVs: Just ban the ones from China. Problem solved.

Because a zero-day is any flaw made public before the developer knows about it. One of the main ways this happens is by noticing that hackers are breaking into systems using a heretofore unknown exploit.

Your statement would apply if these data center space nutters could certify that everything they launch will reach escape velocity.

For everything else, what goes up, must come down. Right back into our jurisdiction.

We can't afford to let the success of big tech companies depend on the health of fragile meatbags. We need to get resilient, fault-tolerant AGI in there running the enterprise. Also, unlike meatbags, you don't need $100M stock payouts to convince an AGI to work as a corporate executive.

They've already dealt with this. If you read the fine print on these agreements, many or most of the recent ones say that the company has the option of rolling up any "substantially similar" arbitration cases into a single mass arbitration. (Which as usual, is decided by a person whose paycheck ultimately depends on the business of that same company.)

Sorry. When you signed up for that discount card a few years ago, you agreed to individual binding arbitration only.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Let's figure it out together:

test.c: In function 'main':
test.c:5:14: error: expected expression before ';' token
    5 | int x = 1+;

Apparently, Oneplus is a syntax error.

Without support, T-Mobile probably won't be entitled to patch any of the inevitable future critical security vulnerabilities found in VMware's software.