[tongue in cheek alert]
Why not remove all identifying information from the requests, then publish the anonymous number? After all, it's perfectly fine for the government to collect data on its citizens for the purpose of this or that as long as the data is randomized and all chance of identifying individuals has been removed. Or so they say.
[\tica]

Just tie the cars' AI into the NSA database so they know where everyone is. Problem solved.

If you think liberals are any more on the warpath than conservatives, you ARE too stupid :)

Does Facebook have the responsibility of ensuring we are only exposed to "real" news? No. You can blame them for providing tools that make it easier to spread fake news, but that's what printing presses were a few hundred years ago. No, it is YOUR responsibility to think critically about the things you read (and share). The big problem really is that the schools have not been able to teach enough of you to do so.

Actually, not quite. For the analogy to work, each half of the coin is equally heads and tails until the measurement. Only the entanglement itself (i.e. that one is opposite the other) was encoded in the envelope to begin with.
We might need another analogy. Consider Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as entangled particles guaranteed to hold opposite views on any given topic. With Hillary in New York and Donald in Los Angeles, ask Donald a question about one of the few things he has no opinion on. Until you ask, nobody (including Donald and Hillary) can know what his answer will be. But as soon as you ask and he answers, we Know what Hillary thinks about the subject as well.
Now, at this point, Donald and Hillary have taken Stands on the issue. Before the question was asked, each of them equally supported and opposed the issue. Once the question was asked, one fully supported and the other fully opposed the issue. If you then manage to convince Donald to change his mind, your efforts destroy the entanglement, so it will not change Hillary's opinion.

Actually... you are right...

Who said anything about destroying energy? If you want to do something, you take energy from one place (i.e. the chemical potential energy of propane molecules) and put it somewhere else. The "somewhere else" always involves some increased thermal energy of the surroundings, and often also involves actually doing something, like making your forklift go (increased kinetic energy), lifting a pallet (increased potential energy), or in this case, moving electrons around. It is in fact the very conservation of energy that you implicitly invoke that blows your argument out of the water: energy is neither destroyed NOR CREATED. You take 1 J of energy from the power company and move some electrons around, you don't have a whole J of energy to put into heating the room.

Actually, you don't do so well in thermodynamics either :) Your conservation of energy bit is fine, but energy is heat + work. So your argument only holds if no work was done. Computation requires moving charge through potential differences, which is electrical work.

Yeah. Next you might end up with universal health care.

Turtles all the way down.

Lovely post :) If I had mod points, I'd mod it up. Except, of course, that you spelled course wrong....

Excellent. This takes care of the problem of rising sea levels.

5 mod points but not a one that says "CONTRITE". I guess it's so rare.... Anyway, +1 CONTRITE.

right. I didn't have any debt until I landed a faculty position.

Lottery winners? Yes. Sports stars? Not so sure. Movie stars? I highly doubt it.

So you think endless growth is the sustainable answer?

Yes. America's health care is certainly a cut above medieval. Modern? No. But better than medieval. Ok, I'm done now. Wow... it feels good to stop....