I mean, it’s one banana, Michael. What could it cost, $10?

Uhhh… no, it’s not. Learn to cook. Hell, just learn to heat up frozen foods.

Elfen Lied? I swear the only thing I remember about that anime was the controversy about its gore and themes.

I mean, how much is banana? Like $10?

Depends on the area, and it can be hard to move out of big cities sometimes.

Journalists should be funded by the public, as they perform a public service, while simultaneously they should not be required to report favorably upon the state.

And that’s the crux of the issue, isn’t it? You can’t let corpos piss all over journalism to turn it yellow, and you can’t let a state-run press dictate the citizen’s world view.

Information wants to be free, and that’s realistically the only way it can work.

Name the cases.

Posts article on social media. How ironic!

I’m sure a large part of that has to do with David Zaslav.

Or torrents. If piracy’s on the rise (again) as a replacement for streaming, you can sure as hell bet that it was already replacing sites like PornHub way before that.

Every country has a whole bunch of “that guy” who likes to do stupid shit to the detriment of society. Sometimes it’s the poor and uneducated, sometimes it’s the ultra wealthy unburdened by their sociopathy. It varies.

The poor and uneducated are that way because it’s in the ultra-wealthy’s best interests.

“I love the poorly educated!”

If the data is falsified that’d be illegal.

Oh no! It would be illegal!

And what would be the punishment if it was found out that they released illegal data? A fine that could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars? On top of their tens of millions of dollars of profits?

Do you have a reason to think otherwise?

Yes, they are directly incentivized to either push their data in a biased direction or outright falsify their numbers, in order to facilitate the marketing strategy of these taxis being a “safe” technology, and increase their profit margin.

Fuck… have we learned nothing from the tobacco industry?!

I know about trans people and cross-dressers. But, in a political cartoon, with characters that are light on details, artists (or AI in this case) will use easily-identifiable, stereotypical signs to showcase a trait or gender. For example, lipstick, or a bow, or a dress or skirt, to identify a character as female.

We all know this and are exposed to this pattern all the time. Or are you seriously suggesting that the bill is trans, but is somehow also pregnant?

Funny how most laws are incentivized to punish the poor, by setting static monetary fines that rich people and corporations would scoff at.

Waymo robotaxis are so safe that, according to the company’s data, its driverless vehicles are involved in 91 percent fewer crashes compared to human-operated vehicles.

Wow, you think the “company’s data” is a trustworthy source? Where is your critical thinking skills?

There’s around a million people dying from cars every year and we just shrug and normalize them. Human or not, we just have to have cars and “accidents” are just that.

The difference is accountability. If a human kills another human because of a car accident, they are liable, even criminally liable, given the right circumstances. If a driverless car kills another human because of a car accident, you’re presented with a lose-lose scenario, depending on the legal implementation:

1. If the car manufacturer says that somebody must be behind the wheel, even though the car is doing all of the driving, the person is suddenly liable for the accident. They are expected to just sit there and watch for a potential accident, but the behavior of what an AI model will do is undefined. Is the model going to stop in front of that passenger as expected? How long do they wait to see before they take back control? It’s not like cruise control, a feature that only controls part of the car, where they know exactly how it behaves and when to take back control. It’s the equivalent of asking a person to watch a panel with a single red light for an hour, and push a button as fast as possible when it blinks for a half-second.

2. If the model is truly driverless (like these taxis), then NOBODY is liable for the accident. The company behind it might get sued, or might end up in a class-action lawsuit, but there is no criminal liability, and none of these lawsuits will result in enough financial impact to facilitate change. The companies have no incentive to fix their software, and will continue to parrot this shitty line about how it’s somehow better than humans at driving, despite these easily hackable scenarios and zero accountability.

Humans have an incentive to not kill people, since nobody wants to have that on their conscience, and nobody wants to go to prison over it.

Corporations don’t. In fact, they have an incentive to kill people over profits, if the choice presents itself!

If a robotic taxi can lower the taxi category of accidents by 91% across the board, including death rates, then that’s a positive improvement to society any way you slice it. Not saying it isn’t a horrifying dystopian world we’re potentially building, but at the moment, given the numbers, it would be 91% safer in that category.

You need to prove this number. Looking at the behavior of current driverless cars, the software is still shit, and nothing has reached Level 5 Autonomous Driving. There are too many edge cases, and conflicting behavior points. Navigating a world of humans driving in different ways with complex urban and rural streets is a very very messy affair.

Hell, nobody in the space can even answer this simple question correctly: If the speed limit is 55 MPH on the highway, and everybody is going 65 MPH, and we know that the delta of speed is what kills people in highway car accidents, what speed does the driverless car use?

(Hint: the correct answer is not 55.)

Jason Koebler, however, came to my defense. He circled the pregnant belly of the cartoon bill and shared it. “Baby is stored in the circle area,” he said.

But, it’s not male. The bill is clearly wearing lipstick…

No, it’s from a rap song, but almost everybody doesn’t have the context. Just tell the middle-school kids that it really means a 10-67, that at least for the rapper’s local police codes, means they found a dead body.

All of the other theories are made up.