Al Qaeda never promised not to attack the US. In fact, Osama bin-Laden explicitly stated his demands prior to the attacks. And yet people got very upset about it. Go figure.

It seems many people believe some kind of tribal moral philosophy, which says, "WE know WE are good, therefore anything WE do is good. And because WE are good, anyone who doesn't do what we tell them to do is EVIL, and anything THEY do is evil, and we must destroy them." That's my best guess, anyway. A few people, like Pete Hegseth, actually make this explicit.

Actually, it has already worked twice: once last July and again in February.

If I recall correctly, Japan made a sneak attack on the US Navy base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (a valid military target), on December 7, 1941, without a declaration of war. The US governmant and population seemed to consider this reprehensible and totally evil.

Yet when Trump does the same thing, suddenly it's okay.

One would think other countries would have learned that ere now. There are plenty of examples.

Let's stipulate that the current government of Iran is horrible and evil. Reportedly 30,000 people killed just for protesting against the government. Does that give the US -- or any other country -- a legal or moral right to attack Iran, or to try to overthrow their government, or to start a war? No, it doesn't. Not at all.

How many countries has the US invaded since, say, the year 2000? How many deaths have resulted? And how many countries has Iran invaded?

What's your evidence for this? Have you had many hours of long and deep interviews with Iranian leaders? Can you read minds? Can you list some innocent civilians outside Iran who have been killed by Iran?

Do they even lift?

I was hoping at the bottom of the article it would say that Professor Utonium accidentally added Chemical X.

The fines should be proportional to actual damage caused (ie: 100% coverage of any interest on loans, any extra spending the person needed to do in consequence, loss of compound interest, damage to credit rating along with any additional spending this resulted in, and any medical costs that can reasonably be attributed to stress/anxiety). It would be difficult to get an exact figure per person, but a rough estimate of probable actual damage would be sufficient. Add that to the total direct loss - not the money that went through any individual involved, and THEN double that total. This becomes the minimum, not the maximum. You then allow the jury to factor in emotional costs on top of that.

In such cases as this, the statutary upper limit on fines should not apply. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that laws and the Constitution can have reasonable exceptions and this would seem to qualify.

If a person has died in the meantime, where the death certificate indicates a cause of death that is medically associated with anxiety or depression, each person invovled should also be charged with manslaughter per such case.

Every day, everything seems to get worse, whether politics or tech, everything seems to get worse.
Every day

...the adoption of robots

If you set it to "85th percentile of observed traffic" you are selecting 15% to be targets of fines. Why 15 and not 20, or 10?

States with "reasonable and prudent" rather than "explicit speed limits" do a more logically consistent job here. Reasonable and prudent is what we're really looking for - everyone choose a speed that is safe for the conditions of the road, the vehicle, and the surrounding traffic.

The problem is that it's difficult to fine people for that, because it is partly subjective and different for every driver and weather conditions. It's much easier to set an explicit speed limit and then measure speeds. Explicit speed limits exist for the convenience of the courts, with safety of the road users as a distant secondary objective.

If you want to improve safety, then look into "traffic calming" measures. In particular those that cause drivers to perceive higher risk (and research into conditions where drivers falsely perceive lower risk). Even just drawing the lines narrower on a wide street can have an effect. If you design the road right, drivers will naturally choose the right speed for the environment without any need for a road nanny.

Learning to use new, immature tech is inherently problematic and we never get it right at first
The tech will improve and out way of using it will adapt

That's because people willing to pay to take a toll road to save speed can always avoid said toll road if they actually have to follow the speed limit on it. That eliminates the revenue the toll road gets, costing them money.
Florida had this situation with a new toll road that runs parallel to the highway around Orlando. Cops were running speed traps there. They were quickly banned because they noted it was killing the number of people taking the road, costing them far more in revenue.

Perhaps, but camera systems without the officer don't actually issue "tickets" that carry points. They issue "citations" that show up nowhere if paid.

I think what is really going on is that is not 'fluid IQ', but regular, normal "IQ".

That is, stupid people either do not realize the AI is wrong, or more likely, they are so used to being corrected by more intelligent people that they just assume the AI must be smarter than they are and do not challenge it.

I can also see a small number of submissive/shy/apathetic people just accepting the wrong information and thinking it is not worth fixing.

This kind of thing gets me so mad that I would never just accept that.

While it is true that most speed limits are placed due to risk, that is not always true.

There are places in the US and other countries where speed tickets are used to raise money from out of towners. They do things like down shift the speed by 10 mph for a 1 mile stretch and then station a cop near there. The cops know the local cars and if they do happen to break the law they get warnings.

In addition, often speed limits are set differently for wealthy parts of town vs the poor parts of town - to give out more tickets in the poor areas.

Similar things happen with parking enforcement. My personal 'favorite' is looking at police cars illegally parked all around the police station. Or the slightly more sophisticated version of this where the parking laws around the police station are different than those around the rest of the city.