NHSTA data shows Tesla's being ~1/2 as likely to be involved in a crash as comparable cars. That already covers the premium reduction.

Tesla often claims much higher safety advantage (up to 10x) and has been criticised for misrepresentation as those numbers are based on pretty selective data - telemetry collected when FSD is turned on. Which is obviously not all the time and in fact most likely to be used on the easy part of the route, so not at all represent of the average risk.

But in this case those are exactly the conditions in which Lemonade is offering the reduction, so they are providing a 2X payout for 10X payoff. And even if that affects the statistics negatively (more use of FSD in risky conditions for reduced premium) you would expect that to at worst converge to the overall 2X payoff.

But honestly they are probably going to get their real savings from the telemetry and being able to back their non-payouts with ironclad proof, and, conversely, not spend legal and investigative resources when they should just payout.

Assuming AI tooling did offer a productivity advantage, if both you and your competitor move from not having it to having it, then you have gained no net advantage. That doesn't mean you could just as well have skipped it, because then your competitors *would* gain an advantage.

In short, you need to measure something besides $.

True, but I think what they really, really don't want is free flowing Iranian oil. The "evil regime that gets heavy sanctions" status quo is very agreeable to them because it appreciates the value of their one major asset.

You have no concept of the region at all. Iran is not Syria. They aren't even Arab. And 250k people of Iranian descent live in Israel now, which is a sizable portion of a country with only 9 million people altogether. The people of Iran and the people of Israel are friendly, to the point that you often see Israeli flags and the old Iranian lion and sun flag displayed together at ex-pat events.

If Israel wanted chaos in Iran they could certainly have achieved that. They didn't have any problem at all taking out Iran's defenses and claiming air superiority in their last altercation. Why stop and leave after you win if your desire is to make a mess?

Contrary to the summary, the mass protests are not really continuing at this point. The Iranian regime has killed anywhere from several thousand to several tens of thousands of protesters - open fire with machine guns into crowds, setting markets on fire and shooting people as they tried to escape, sniping from rooftops - and that's been ruthless enough that people are now afraid to go out in most places. The streets are generally deserted. (Even groups of two have been enough to get shot in some places.)

So why is the internet still blocked?

Doubtless a number of reasons, but part of it is the Iranians have been using the internet to share videos of the massacres, of the bodies, of the armed militia patrolling the streets, and plea for help. A revealing component is that the government forces have been going door-to-door confiscating satellite equipment and arresting people in possession of Starlink. Especially given their Russian jamming equipment, those devices are not being used to effectively coordinate protests. But they *are* letting civilians fire off odd messages saying what has been happening.

In particular, the regime has upward of ten thousand additional protesters who are presently arrested, and the Iranian justice minister has declared they will be executed. Those executions were supposed to start yesterday. Allegedly, the regime is holding back after threats of outside response, but the suspicion inside Iran is that they are choosing to perform those killings more quietly.

Unfortunately the blackout strategy is highly effective. The reports of extraordinary brutality and atrocities come across as extraordinary claims, for which Western journalists therefore want significant evidence, but with rare exceptions the Iranians can only get out occasional short messages. Meanwhile the IRGC and Basij are busy doing all the things their leaders are equally busy promising that they aren't doing.

Here is the slashdot article where AOC's 10% cap was discussed. Interesting to look at the comments and observe the very different community reaction to the identical proposal with different name attached.

As far as the people of Venezuela, they seem be dancing in the streets and waving American flags.

Their total profits have been roughly equal to the revenue they get from membership fees, which suggests the customer experience (rather than marked up goods) is what they are really selling.

You evaluated the claims and considered them probable enough (presumably familiar with the egregiousness of the state's failure to act on behalf of citizens in the Rothertham child exploitation coverups) that you wanted to protect yourself from egg on your face by caveating a "Likely" on your doubts.

However, with the same weighing of evidence in which you hedge on your own behalf, you feel comfortable proclaiming someone else guilty of depraved sexual perversions?

Interesting principles to live by.

This accounting seems pretty close:

Doesn't mention directly assaulting the rapists so if it's what OP was referring to then he may have mixed up that detail with another story.

But given these rape cover ups spanned decades and involved over a thousand cases it's hard to say certainly if it's not just another case.

Did you notice where the summary said "Most of that growth — 73% — happened in red [Republican-leaning] states. Eight of the top 10 states for new installations fall into that category, including Texas, Indiana, Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, and Arkansas..."

Turns out that "We think solar is stupid but there's land here if you morons want to build it" is much less of an impediment to clean energy than "Oh we loooooove solar let's start the 10-year environment impact review process right away so we can get you your conditional permit."

Alarming that this is quote is allegedly from the person listed as the lead author on the study.

The study didn't perform any measurements that could establish a rate of change of DNA. It didn't even look at DNA or any heritable differences between the bears, it only looks at RNA expression of markers it said were correlated.

More specifically it only looked at RNA expression *in the blood* for *17 bears* and used the average temperature of the nearest town to the bear population. So temperature was just a proxy for population with lots of confounders. The study did nothing either to show that those were *advantageous* changes for bears in heat-stressed areas.

About the only actual take away from the study is "there were differences in blood transcriptomes of bears at different latitudes." Any further meaning is an unevidenced hypothetical.

Which could certainly be a starting point for further research. But that's about the extent of it.

Is this about Trump, Rubio, Bush, Paul, Cotton, Cruz, and Vance all saying that people should stop going to college?

Even the summary says

How you got from "cross-demographic survey results" to "conspiracy of all republicans" seems a bit of a leap. If the Republicans *actually have* found a way to exert that much influence on the views of every demographic group, the Democrats might as well just pack their bags and go home, they're done forever.

I think in reality this is just a survey detecting people noticing exploding tuition costs and feeling bleak about the future job market, especially being displaced by technology.

Slashdot itself has had a bevy of articles over the years (such as
this) about the harms of social media to developing adolescents.

Is Slashdot part of the propaganda campaign to wipe out digital anonymity?

The data on harms is at least a big chunk of the motivation. Maybe the response to it is a moral panic or maybe the response is proportionate to the evidence. But I think it's going to win out in terms of policy.

If you don't like the proposed solution, I think you better start promoting a better way to implement this kind of intervention that still preserves the protections you care about.

Or people are going to go with the not-better way.

AI has already made just about anyone who knows how to use it vastly richer. You can get (often better) medical diagnosis without taking time off from work, navigate a will and a tax return without having to hire a lawyer, figure out how to structure investments without hiring a financial manager, learn exactly what steps to take and what you need to buy to do a home repair. Have an idea of something to sell? You can offload a lot of figuring out market fit, advertising, business structure, etc. People who want to be entrepreneurs have a lot less holding them back.

As for killing economic activity, I realize you view all of those all as net losses to society since no six or seven figure salary professional gets to send a massive bill in the mail. But for my part I am buying **more things** things because AI is helping me find out exactly what I need - often solutions I hadn't realized were available. And I am engaging **more** services for the same reason - not every home repair is feasible with AI help, but I can use it to find out when and what professionals are needed, expected cost, and who is licensed and well-reviewed.

Effectively having an auto-shopper buy all sorts of stuff for me and hire services I previously didn't have time to verify would be a net benefit is supposed to "reduce" economic activity???

If we even buy into the theory that humans or some group of humans will be completely sidelined by the AI economy, to the point they don't have jobs - might not those extraneous humans still want to eat? And might not they turn to finding ways to produce their own food? And wouldn't some of them need to work on the necesssary equipment? And isn't it conceivable they would start trading skills and material for food, mediated by some agreed upon means of exchange? And if some portion of that food or material might be even the least bit useful to anyone in the AI economy, might not they trade with them as well?

There is not going to be an end to economic activity. Economic activity isn't whatever is leftover for humans to do after the machines finish, economic activity is whatever humans (A) want and (B) can obtain. 'A' is limitless; 'B' only increases over time.