I'm with you all the way on that. I don't want to draw false equivalence. There are however unfortunate ways in which they are exactly the same, and they are not positive. The corporatocracy is based on extractive and unsustainable actions which make the world a worse place for everyone, even the upper scum. They wind up with fewer days fit for yachting.
Did you accidentally hit submit here, or run out of VRAM?
The question you ask can be easily reversed. Why do humans deserve to live?
The question can't be answered at all without defining moral preferences. In some moral systems, the strong deserve to kill the weak, if they so desire.
replace actors
Good. I worked as a techie in live theater for five years, finally left swearing to never return until they had replaced actors with holograms (of course then you don't need the lighting guy any more, either.) Some of the worst people in the world. (Then there are the 'stage mothers', who are a whole order of magnitude worse than their brats.)
I gotta concur. Out of curiosity, have you seen Ricky Gervais roasting the crap out of them at awards ceremonies. He's an abrasive dude, but speaks truth to the creeps.
Uber was always supposed to use humans only as a temporary measure until they could get self driving vehicles.
He should read the story that's actually about earth then
Well, that's one economic outcome, and one I would welcome, I'm not quite so confident in humanity's ability to successfully navigate that, but it would be wonderful.
I'm highly doubtful we will achieve significant space exploration. The physics have been stubbornly unforgiving on this with no workarounds in sight. We *can* do some stuff within the solar system, though the payoff is questionable. Interstellar has even more unforgiving physics and even more uncertainty. With a *massive* expenditure of energy we might be able to get a probe to Proxima Centauri and data back within 15 years to have a better idea if it's even worth a hypothetical human expedition.
Not your morning coffee.
Don't we already have laws against drinking and driving? When I used to drive regularly our cars had AM radios with a tape slot, and they were always playing ads warning you not to drink and drive, because it was illegal.
Not your shaver.
Hopefully we will have banned human driving altogether, and it will be Self-driving cars only by the time you would need to worry about a significant rate of accidents caused by holding shavers or other random accessories.
You were not supposed to do that either when driving. And holding a paper map or atlas ought to have been prosecuted the same.
Drivers should wait until you find a time and place where it is safe to stop, then pull over, in case you need to study the map.
The based, living in the now people are using manifest coding. . Super simple, you perform a supplication to the Universe to manifest your project, and perfect code appears in your email, and you move on to the next manifestation.
Crystals help too.
Other people don't bother, and just paint the outside. It works, but not a "true" vintage PC restoration.
There is no such thing as a true vintage restoration. You cannot restore the chemicals in the plastic, by definition you are not changing it back to how it was. But if you are uncasing it, painting the case well, and allowing the paint to cure fully before reassembling it, then you will wind up with a result that cannot reasonably be distinguished from the real thing — especially since there are no pristine examples of the real thing any more since they are all age-affected.
If someone made new reproduction cases, you could do a "true" restoration with them. Everything else is just one band-aid or another. And even a reproduction case would have to be modified from the original materials in order to not just have the same problem again.
When I'm using a map app, I hold the phone so that I can see the map and the road at the same time. Putting it in a holder means I have to look away from the road. I don't get it.
Don't get what, that there are holders which can be mounted in your line of sight?
And to those saying you need two hands to drive, obviously you have never driven a stick.
That's why I need two hands to drive. My hand is not usually on the stick, except when I'm in traffic. On the highway the wheel moves around enough that it's wise to use both hands to manage it, thanks to the amazing quality of American roads. This is not difficult, especially when using both hands, but it does require constant corrections. So either I need both hands so I can have one on the wheel and one on the stick, or I need both hands so I can have them both on the wheel, in order to drive safely.
No skis take rocks like rental skis!
