WoodScientist

I was going to say they should send her down to hold get out the vote rallies in Puerto Rico.

Require all philosophy professors at the Athens University philosophy department to be middle-aged gay men with 20-something twink lovers.

We should give a bunch of military aid to Greece. But make it all contingent on them recreating the Sacred Band of Thebes.

Full self driving should only be implemented when the system is good enough to completely take over all driving functions. It should only be available in vehicles without steering wheels. The Tesla solution of having "self driving" but relying on the copout of requiring constant user attention and feedback is ridiculous. Only when a system is truly capable of self-driving 100% autonomously, at a level statistically far better than a human, should any kind of self-driving be allowed on the road. Systems like Tesla's FSD officially require you to always be ready to intervene at a moment's notice. They know their system isn't ready for independent use yet, so they require that manual input. But of course this encourages disengaged driving; no one actually pays attention to the road like they should, able to intervene at a moment's notice. Tesla's FSD imitates true self-driving, but it pawns off the liability do drivers by requiring them to pay attention at all times. This should be illegal. Beyond merely lane-assistance technology, no self-driving tech should be allowed except in vehicles without steering wheels. If your AI can't truly perform better than a human, it's better for humans to be the only ones actively driving the vehicle.

This also solves the civil liability problem. Tesla's current system has a dubious liability structure designed to pawn liability off to the driver. But if there isn't even a steering wheel in the car, then the liability must fall entirely on the vehicle manufacturer. They are after all 100% responsible for the algorithm that controls the vehicle, and you should ultimately have legal liability for the algorithms you create. Is your company not confident enough in its self-driving tech to assume full legal liability for the actions of your vehicles? No? Then your tech isn't good enough yet. There can be a process for car companies to subcontract out the payment of legal claims against the company. They can hire State Farm or whoever to handle insurance claims against them. But ultimately, legal liability will fall on the company.

This also avoids criminal liability. If you only allow full self-driving in vehicles without steering wheels, there is zero doubt about who is control of the car. There isn't a driver anymore, only passengers. Even if you're a person sitting in the seat that would normally be a driver's seat, it doesn't matter. You are just a passenger legally. You can be as tired, distracted, drunk, or high as you like, you're not getting any criminal liability for driving the vehicle. There is such a clear bright line - there is literally no steering wheel - that it is absolutely undeniable that you have zero control over the vehicle.

This actually would work under the same theory of existing drunk-driving law. People can get ticketed for drunk driving for sleeping in their cars. Even if the cops never see you driving, you can get charged for drunk driving if they find you in a position where you could drunk drive. So if you have your keys on you while sleeping drunk in a parked car, you can get charged with DD. But not having a steering wheel at all would be the equivalent of not having the keys to a vehicle - you are literally incapable of operating it. And if you are not capable of operating it, you cannot be criminally liable for any crime relating to its operation.

Profanity? In terms of four-letter words, I doubt it. But I could absolutely see a conservative house making political hay by deadnaming her and refusing to use her correct pronouns on the House floor.

In many cities, nighttime noise level is limited by decibel level. But even low-level noise is allowed if below some level. So you could have some extremely quiet speakers gently wafting spooky sounds while you do this. Or if that's a bridge too far, whose to say you don't personally just like listening to Gregorian chants and quiet levels while you work?

This is by design.

Life pro tip for those nocturnal. Even those nocturnal folks need to mow their lawns. For modestly sized lawns, a scythe can be a great option! It's also perfectly legal to mow your lawn with a scythe at three in the morning, dressed in a long black hooded robe.

Well you see, according to conservatives, women doing any of those things are acting counter for their god-given gender roles. As such, they are transgender, and deserve to have their rights taken away...

Did you really think the focus on trans people is actually ultimately about trans people?

It would have to be a young male child of color for even a small portion of his base to care.

Not to be confused with the most common name. World wide, the single most common first name is Mohammad. The single most common last name is Wong. Therefore, the most common name globally must be Mohammad Wong.

It's simple statistics!

This is myopic thinking. We all live in one big housing market. If you don't have enough houses built, it doesn't provide housing for the working class. You just end up with multi-millionaires living in tiny homes.

When you restrict the ability of builders to build new homes, they focus on maximizing the profit of the few homes they can make. We had cheap housing in the US in eras where we made it possible for builders to build vast numbers of housing on a colossal scale. That way you can really harness economies of scale and drive down the price tremendously.

There are two ways to make money by making something. You can either make high-margin luxury goods, or you can make vast numbers of low-margin affordable goods. Our current restrictions on home buildings encourage developer to take the former path, when we want to encourage them to take the latter.