Y'all need to read up on the Indian rubber company or any one of the thousands of companies involved in colonialism.

Or Jesus fucking Christ Coke has death squads. And the stuff that the del Monte fruit company did would give you nightmares.

I don't like Facebook because they are driving my country to fascism but they've got a long way to go.

On the other hand they did help Elon Musk kill 8 million kids so there is that.

Meta also materially contributed to a genocide in Myanmar, though. And the other damage it has done to society in terms of promoting conspiracy theories and divisiveness, not to mention damaging democracy via schemes like the Cambridge Analytica one has yet to be tallied.

"A sanction of that size has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement,"

The incredible harms done worldwide by Meta's business model also have no analog in the history of shitty company behavior. Next up: Go after their copycats like TikTok and other toxic social media platforms.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

The phrase you're looking for is "BAU, functioning as designed"

The idea is probably from 1950's comic books but the tech seems brand new since they don't need any landing legs and use a net-on-frame architecture.

People should pay attention because they didn't have orbital technology thirty years ago and now they have a space station, reusable rockets, and are about to have a Moon base.

And possibly ultra-long flighttime 'drones' that can fly over Picatinny Arsenal unimpeded; that much is uncertain. We have no explanation for their energy budget (at least white-world).

Having a country run by engineers rather than professional thieves who hire engineers to justify pillage has certain advantages (and disadvantages).

Let's not get too overconfident.

This is a small prototype, not a full-scale mirror.

Also, ignoring that, pretending light brighter than the full moon is useless is... silly? For generating power, sure, but for illumination, it absolutely is not.

Yes, the manufacturer of the self-driving system. People have been asking this silly question for a decade now, even though there is no other answer. Google, at least, has stated publicly on many occasions that they are liable for the actions of their self-driving vehicles.

No, they did not. In fact they said exactly the opposite, that the cars are never remotely-piloted. They said that the cars occasionally request guidance, which means something like "Should I go this way or that way?", then the car acts on the answer.

I quit using Windows in 2000, and it's been at least a decade, if not more, since I ran into anything like that.

When the money from that all just goes up to the top. It doesn't really make any difference which country is selling us to crap because we still have to buy it and all the profit from it goes straight to the top.

So the problem we have is yeah immigrants generate a lot of wealth but nobody's really seeing any of it except the 0.1%. hell we don't even get the benefits of the taxes they pay because those just get turned into tax cuts for billionaires. Or I guess now trillionaires.

I get this a lot with my fellow lefties in the political spectrum where they are all rah rah rah socialism right until it comes time to discuss the practical impacts of immigration. Then all of the sudden they're talking about how it's important to make the line go up.

The more radical ones Will just tell you that they want to do away with the concept of countries all together and I mean fine whatever I'm all for that Star Trek shit but you have to tell me how you're actually going to do it. Because right now we came a few steps away from building Auschwitz in Florida and it was only because of the sheer incompetence of the people trying to do it that it didn't happen.

They are going to keep trying. That's one of the things about nazis. And these people are nazis. Nazis never give up. And they are laser focused on achieving their goals. They aren't hobbyists they're deadly serious professionals. Even if they're incredibly incompetent professionals they still take their work seriously in a way most of us don't when it comes to politics.

They aren't even capable of that. They can do what Lane assist has been doing for 10 or 20 years. As soon as they are in a situation where Lane assist isn't enough they get handed off to remote control.

Eventually these companies are going to be expected to turn a profit and the only way to do that is going to be having the remote control 100% overseas by people paid slave labor wages. Imagine the worst idiotic stereotypes about bad New York City cab drivers but make them real and have it done by wire over the internet across the globe. That's what we've got in store for our transportation Network.

You got Google you can look up what I wrote and confirm it. They admitted exactly what I said. Which is that they periodically remote control the cars. They did try to weasel their way out of it. Which is also what you're doing. Why?

Not them I know why they tried to weasel out of admitting that their cars aren't actually self-driving. What do you get out of that?

We have a huge amount of our economy being propped up by investment scams for technology that doesn't work. A lot of that is so that these overvalued companies can be stuffed into our 401K savings. SpaceX is going to wipe at least 2 trillion dollars of value off all of our retirement savings. Google wants in on that action because that money doesn't disappear it leaves our pockets and goes into the pockets of the billionaires now becoming trillionaires...

I'm just saying that maybe now would be a good time to call these companies out on their bullshit and get some regulations in place before we all wake up one day to find that our savings are gone and we're 70 and we're expected to go back to work full time or eat cat food on the streets

Citation needed.

Google doesn't even have self-driving cars. Maybe you're thinking about Waymo (which is part of Alphabet, not Google).

Regardless, no, to the best of my understanding, they cannot be driven remotely at all, at least by any normal person's definition of the word "drive". When intervention is required, the remote operators get a dump of camera images to review, and then they draw a proposed path on a map. The car then tries to follow it, and aborts if doing so would result in hitting anything. This may have to be done more than once to get it out of the problem situation. When the vehicle says that it is comfortable proceeding on its own, the remote operator tells it to go ahead, and it takes over path planning again.

At no point is any remote operator in direct control over the vehicle. All they can do is propose an alternative path when the vehicle's path planner gets stuck trying to figure out how to safely extricate itself from some situation. At all times, the vehicle's software is the driver. The remote operator is just hinting that it should go to the left of safety cone A, to the right of cone B, etc. (or whatever the situation happens to be). This is why it takes so long to extricate a stuck car. If there were an actual remote driver that could take real-time control, it would take just a few seconds.

From what I've read, when a Waymo car sees emergency lights, it stops driving and gets out of the way. I do see one (presumably) recent video where a Waymo stopped in a place that actually delayed an ambulance from getting past it on a narrow street, so unless that's an old video, I'm guessing there's still a bit more tweaking required in terms of recognizing whether the right choice is to stop or to move out of the way. I'd imagine someone is already working on making sure that particular edge case doesn't happen again.

What I'm not seeing is evidence of some widespread problem with autonomous vehicles in general. There's an edge case here or an edge case there where something didn't work as expected. And they'll complain about it, and the AV company in question will figure out why the car did the wrong thing, update their training sets, and that specific scenario won't happen again.

(This, of course, ignores Tesla, because the emergency vehicle drivers can't tell if the vehicle is being driven by the car or by a human, making any sort of reporting problematic at best.)

So realistically, I suspect that the answer to a vague demand from a government agency demanding to know what AV companies will do to prevent bad interactions with emergency vehicles will always be "exactly what we're already doing", because apart from coming up with new simulated situations to test (which they're always doing), there's really nothing they can do to prevent the car from behaving the wrong way in some vague unspecified future situation that nobody has thought of yet. And the answer to what they're doing to prevent a specific situation will usually be "We've already updated our training sets and that won't happen again."

To that end, I'm really not sure what they're trying to accomplish with sending a letter like that. Seems more like political posturing than any actual attempt at solving a problem. *shrugs*

So the problem with these things is they Don't really work. Google admitted that at a congressional hearing. They're basically remote controlled cars with really really fancy driver assist features. Frighteningly it appears that they are sometimes piloted from the Philippines. Publicly Google will tell you that's not true but that's not what they told Congress when they were under oath...

The obvious problem with all this is that they're going to have problems with ambulances and such. And that's the waymo ones that are the best and most functional. The ones from Tesla which are so bad even Tesla doesn't really want them on the roads are a disaster waiting to happen. It does however keep their stock price up...

Frankly these things shouldn't be on the road with us but it's not like we have any say in anything anymore

Dude, you're being ridiculous.

That's clearly not the intention here if the end result of passing through the luxury terminal is boarding the same airplane as those masses, and it is. It's obviously just to make the airport part of the travel experience nicer, in ways that would be too expensive to apply to the regular terminal. It's the same thing as airport lounges (I'm a Delta Sky Club member myself, a privilege I pay money for so I have the option of a nicer place to wait, the availability of hot showers on long trips, food, drinks, etc.) just scaled up to cover the whole airport process... right up to boarding time when the people get shuttled to board with everyone else.