Did you read the article it linked to? I'm guessing not... Here you go:

Your reply convinces me that you haven't bothered to comprehend contract law. If I am not a party to your contract, it does not matter what the clauses in your contract states. I didn't sign it, I didn't agree to it, so I am NOT beholden to it.

Your contract may state that you "indemnify and defend" them in the case of a lawsuit, but that just means that you pay for their lawyers and pay for any fines levied on them. But if you can't pay, that's an issue between YOU and the corporation, because YOU signed the contract. It is not binding on me in any way. Hope you have umbrella insurance that covers indemnification lawsuits!

It doesn't matter what your EULA says about the car you purchased from Microsoft/Google/Tesla/Apple. I was not party to the agreement, and if your car hurt me or my property, I can sue whoever I want, including the car manufacturer, the dealership that sold it, and you. I can sue all three at once if I want. And there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless there is a law that restricts me from doing it (like they did with gun manufacturers).

Your EULA may have a clause where you agree to indemnify and defend the corporation, but that only means you're paying for their lawyers. I can still sue them. The jury decides liability.

To be clear: Tesla AutoPilot is an emergency collision avoidance system, NOT an automatic driving system. Regardless of what its name is, and what plans may be for future completely autonomous driving, the AutoPilot feature set in its current incarnation is only about collision avoidance. It did that quite well from the video shown, that Elon Musk retweeted and that I am responding to. It did not do it so well in a case where a white painted truck against a bright sky turned in front because it wasn't designed to detect that - because it's not a general purpose driving machine yet.

And if there was a car to the right, do you think the Tesla would have swerved into it? You are just making up shit to claim that you're a superior driver. You see, that's something a HUMAN driver might do, because it might only see the threat on the left and not realize another vehicle is on the right. The Tesla very easily knows where all the cars are around the vehicle and can make various adjustments. I don't know what it's programmed to do for all situations, but you obviously don't either. Perhaps if there was a car 3 feet on its bumper and a car immediately to its right and it saw the thread on the left coming over, it couldn't do anything. Maybe it would core dump. Maybe it would just blare its horn. Maybe it would decide the tailgater is going to be at fault and apply the brakes. I don't know, but to assert that the Tesla would have caused a collision if a car was to the right is just... dumb.

Your #2 and #3 are incorrect. The driver uploaded a video of Autopilot saving him from a collision, but never states in the video itself that he was driving hands-free, never states in the description of the video that he was driving hands free, and the camera does not show the steering wheel at all. The only thing the person states is that he wasn't watching that direction -- which was a utility truck coming from the left side on an on-ramp and crossing a lane of traffic and then coming into his lane. Here is the link to the video: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

Ridiculous fluff article. Wal-mart's revenue is more than twice that of Apple's, but no one would claim that Wal-mart is beating Apple.

Microsoft's profit in one quarter is greater than the sum of all profits ever achieved by Amazon through their entire existence. To claim that Amazon has somehow "won" some battle is ridiculous when you're talking about revenue, not profits. They have to do something about their profit margins if they're going to turn revenue into profit...

Elon Musk DID cut it in half. An S-series is $65k base, and this is $35k base. Sure, the car is a little smaller, the interior probably won't be a luxury interior, but the tech is mainly the same (smaller batteries, but maybe more efficient, is still 5-star safety ratings, has all the safety sensors and can upgrade to auto-pilot if you're willing to pay for the software). As economies of scale come into play, it will become cheaper. But he did just cut the price of an EV in half, and it looks damn good.

That's not a bizzaro world. That's reality.

"It's never too late to be pedantic." - drawfour

For me, $5/mo to rent the cablemodem from Comcast. $80 to buy the router. So it pays for itself in a little over a year. Definitely worth it.

When I got Comcast, I had previously had DSL, and the plan there was they gave you the DSL modem after the first year or something, so they did not charge a per-month fee. I stupidly thought this was true as well for Comcast, and never checked the bill. When I noticed the charge, I went right out and bought my own and haven't looked back.

The article says:

So he tried to get at the one under his seat (which was "tampered with"), but since he couldn't get it opened, he tried the seat in front of him (which was "damaged"), and he succeeded.

When Clinton left office, we had a surplus, not a deficit. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...

No. Just because something is legal according to the specification does not make it "right". The specification _should_ be restricted, but it cannot because there are a _lot_ of lines of code out there that would suddenly stop compiling. It _IS_ wrong to do 'if (a = b)' for a few reasons:

1. Someone else won't necessarily know that this was intended unless you have a comment telling them. That comment would take up just as much space as putting an 'a = b;' line before the 'if (a)' line.
2. If your compiler is not capable of optimizing and figuring out that 'if (a=b)' and 'a=b; if (a)' should generate the same machine code, then your compiler is a piece of crap and should be upgraded or replaced.
3. If you get in the habit of doing those kind of 'shortcuts', you are more likely to accidentally do the wrong thing. And since you're so used to that kind of programming, you're more likely to miss it when trying to track down the bug that you introduced. If 'if (a = b)' just looks wrong to you because you never use it, it is more likely to jump out at you when you're debugging, whether it's your own code or someone else's.

The same thing is true for casting ints to pointers, having fall-throughs in switch statements, signed/unsigned mismatches, and a myriad of other "legal" but "just-as-wrong" things.

There is a reason for warnings -- it's because you're doing something wrong. Unfortunately, the compiler lets you do it anyway, probably because there is a ton of legacy code that would suddenly "break" if they were errors by default. But that doesn't mean that you should stop trying to fix these issues. Many of these issues only appear to be benign until you stumble upon the exact issue the warning was trying to warn you about. Static code analysis tools are also your friend. That doesn't mean you can blindly trust them -- static analysis tools do have false warnings. But they're way better than inspecting the code yourself. You'll miss something way more times than the analysis tools will give you a false positive.