The irony is that Tesla’s own numbers condemn it. Tesla’s Vehicle Safety Report claims the average American driver experiences a minor collision every 229,000 miles and a major collision every 699,000 miles. By Tesla’s own benchmark, its “Robotaxi” fleet is crashing nearly 4 times more often than what the company says is normal for a regular human driver in a minor collision, and virtually every single one of these miles was driven with a trained safety monitor in the vehicle who could intervene at any moment, which means they likely prevented more crashes that Tesla’s system wouldn’t have avoided.
More concerningly, they've also upgraded an incident which took place in July from "property damage only" to "Minor w/ Hospitalization":
This means someone involved in a Tesla “Robotaxi” crash required hospital treatment. The original crash involved a right turn collision with an SUV at 2 mph. Tesla’s delayed admission of hospitalization, five months after the incident, raises more questions about its crash reporting, which is already heavily redacted.
What makes you say that?
I just looked at the spray bottle of weed killer I bought last summer: "Roundup Total Weedkiller" - active ingredient "7.2 g/L of glyphosate as a ready to use solution".
Also, I think you meant the CCP instead of the CPC
There are many issues with the post you're responding to, but that isn't one of them. The ruling political party of China refers to itself as the "Communist Party of China" in English.
You can test safety glasses in a lab without putting anyone at risk of anything. Put them in a fixture and throw things at them first, then put them on a simulated human head and throw more things at them. You can keep at this until you are pretty sure that the new safety glasses are at least roughly as good as the old ones before you put them out to market.
But the only "lab" we have for testing vaccines is human bodies. Fortunately, we are talking about the flu and not deadly super-ebola.
I can no longer tell whether you're advocating for a test of the new vaccine against a placebo, or of not testing the new vaccine at all. The risk to study participants of using their bodies as the "lab" for testing the vaccine has nothing to do with whether other trial participants receive a placebo. That risk is controlled by doing stage 1/2 trials at small scale to confirm safety before you move on to a stage 3 trial (subject of this article) at a wider scale to measure efficacy.
I bet that you could get plenty of volunteers willing to take the informed risk of having a 50/50 chance at getting either the new flu shot or a placebo. Some people are at high risk from the flu and would want the (supposedly) proven shot.
I bet that you could get plenty of volunteers willing to take the informed risk of having a 50/50 chance at getting either the new flu shot or a placebo. Some people are at high risk from the flu and would want the (supposedly) proven shot. But roughly half of all adults in America feel no particular danger from the flu, as we know because they don't get the shot now. It would only take a few thousand people from that group of ~100 million to establish a proper baseline. Unless the new shot literally has negative efficacy, they are at no more risk for participating than they had already accepted.
I think you're basically describing the natural experiment we run on already-approved vaccines every flu season. Some people get the shot, some people choose not to, and health agencies measure the proportion of each population that end up with the flu.
That's certainly an informative exercise, but I don't see what value it would add to simulate that experiment as a part of the new vaccine approval process, even if we disregard or solve the ethical question. If the natural experiment shows that established vaccines are more effective than being unvaccinated, and the stage 3 trial shows that the new vaccine is more effective than the established vaccines, what are we missing?
Imagine if someone wanted to test a new material for use in safety glasses. Instead of comparing it to the current state of the art, they decided to give the control group of cabinetmakers safety glasses that are known to offer no protection to see how many of them lose an eye.
Seems irresponsible, right?
Of course if I had that $9 million I'd spend all of it on legal fees to fight giving it back, litigating every word of the contract.
If the judge orders you pay back that $9M, which seems likely, it's not like "Oops, sorry, I spent it all on legal fees" is a way out. That debt is going to follow you. Best case is that you can file for bankruptcy, assuming such debt can even be discharged that way.
What's your church group posting about that it's likely to be flagged as an age-restricted community??
In all seriousness, my guess would be that this makes Discord more appealing to groups like you describe. If Discord ends up with the reputation of a place where kids can get access all sorts of inappropriate content, I imagine parents being skeptical of letting their kids make an account at all. With age restrictions/verification in place some of those fears may be mitigated (even with all the typical caveats that it may turn out to be ineffective security theater).
However, when these agents spot an illegal that maybe hasn't committed any further crimes, other than illegally crossing the border,, do you expect them to just let them go?
How do you "spot an illegal"? We're not talking about people apprehended sprinting away from the border.
I think you're overstating the situation in saying that EVs can't serve "people" in general for 10% of their driving needs, but that aside:
It'll of course depend on the sort of car you're likely to buy, how long you keep that car, your mileage, fuel/electricity costs, etc., but for a lot of ways you can figure those numbers we're already in a world where the total cost of owning an EV is at least 10% less than an ICEV.
Silver is down pretty significantly, Gold is essentially flat
What? The price of gold is up like 50% over the past 6 months. The price of silver has doubled (and peaked much higher than that). The dollar weakening contributes some to that if you're measuring in USD terms, but it hasn't weakened by that much.
what did it offer that I can't get conveniently from Wikipedia?
A source you can cite.
Eliminate most other forms of welfare.
This is often given as a way to (at least partially) fund a UBI, but is it feasible?
Politically, good luck convincing Social Security recipients (who on average receive much more than $600/mo) to give it up after making a lifetime of contributions. I agree that it's not feasible to fund your healthcare out of UBI, so we need to keep around Medicare/Medicaid. And it's not morally acceptable (in my opinion) that if someone on UBI ends up homeless that they're allowed to starve on the street, so we need to keep around some sort of safety net program, too.
After accounting for all of that, what other welfare is there to eliminate? The big programs seem pretty well entrenched.
Exploiting such loopholes would still leave them open to claims of fraud. They've stated in no uncertain terms that "with end-to-end encryption, your messages are secured with a lock, and only the recipient and you have the special key needed to unlock and read them.".
It would be such a brazen lie that it makes me skeptical of the allegations of this lawsuit, even given my very low trust in Meta.
At work, the authority of a person is inversely proportional to the number of pens that person is carrying.
