Some of them did, many voted against it. And of those who didn’t vote at all, many of them didn’t have an option to vote.

They certainly haven’t won

They can meet them. But the profit margin is slimmer than if they use the giant frame.

Someone posted here a while ago - if you use the URL https://www.google.com/search?q=%25s&udm=14 it doesn’t include the AI search. I’ve updated my Google search links to use that instead of the base Google URL.

…were the kids white, out of curiosity?

…I think I’d still rather have AOC kick my ass than have to touch Trump.

Women candidates have struggled in the past, but it’s looking like Harris at least lost because of voter machine rigging.

Realizing cognitive dissonance can often manifest as anger - is it possible you were beginning to get through to them? Obviously I wasn’t there, I’m just looking for more information!

Think I missed something - what’s the thing with orcas and billionaires?

I’m just noticing that the / is next to the . on my keyboard…

Did this just start out as a typo?

I don’t! I’m down for storytime!

Nice, thanks!

It sounds utopian…

It’s not that we don’t want robots doing it - honestly that’d be pretty cool. It’s that we want to be sure the people that are being replaced are being taken care of.

There will always be some jobs. That’s no guarantee that there will be enough jobs for everyone to live modest lives on.

Why is that the comparison, though? Sears developed mail-order catalogues in the 1800s. That’s what Amazon replaced.

…okay, I really want to know the story behind that picture!

That can easily lead to “othering” those kids as well. Also, many parents who can still give their kids food from home might still struggle to do that at times.

Schools are already monitoring a whole mess of kids at once. Why not just take care of feeding them too? That ensures that, regardless of what happens at home, they have at least one good meal each day.

Reading through the article, it seems like one scenario is that a vehicle stopped at an intersection might be about to pull out, endangering another vehicle about to cross? It seems like the thinking is, if you notice a front/side brake light stops being lit as you approach the intersection, it might indicate they’re about to accelerate - be cautious!

I’m not fully convinced either, it seems like a lot of the benefit they’re projecting is based on analysis of historical collisions, rather than any kind of experimental results. It sounds like the study is to justify expanding research to that sort of simulated experimentation, though - I’m curious what that kind of testing would find.

The implied issue with that phrase is you risk your own glass house being pelted, correct? The glass house, in this case, being atrocities each government is implicated in?

I’m fine with all the atrocities being called out. Otherwise, how do we learn not to do them anymore?