Our society has a severe utopian fetish at its core. We made it so that poor are fat rather than dying of hunger: not good enough, tear down capitalism. We made it so that pretty much everyone has a communication device in his/her pocket that can do things we thought of as science fiction just a couple of decades ago. Not good enough because there are some downsides like how youth interacts with them. We made it so that people are mostly cosmopolitan and race-agnostic. Not good enough, must uplift the worst humanity has to offer on a pedestal and worship them.

This is sadly reality of modern Western society. This whole "robotic cars are something like ten times safer than human driven cars, robotic cars so awfully dangerous" is just the same trend.

By the numbers, they do between seven and ten times better than human driven cars.

Waymo publishes their safety numbers. Google it. It's insane how much safer those cars are compared to human driven ones.

It isn't, but it makes for great headlines and feeds the propaganda class.

Hence propaganda class doing the work of earning their cocaine and hooker money.

Because the suit would fail. Waymo publishes its safety numbers, and it's basically the opposite of "evil machines killing people on the roads".

It's more of a "if this was a medical study, we would immediately halt the study and focus on rolling robotic cars for everyone for ethical reasons". Because they're somewhere between seven and ten times less dangerous than human driven cars in terms of accidents, deaths, etc.

So if we focused on ethics of it, human driven cars would be considered so horrifically murderous compared to robotic cars that they would get banned ASAP.

Last I checked the local government said so. They have indemnified waymo in every market they have launched their taxi service. I don't think that would hold up if they killed a human being, at least not one that isn't homeless, but so far it's held up for the more minor stuff that's happened.

Basically waymo cannot be cited for traffic violations and killing a pet is just a traffic violation. The most they could be held responsible for would be the value of the pet which is usually under $100.

It will never cease to be interesting to me how some people get completely random emotional attachment to some random subjects, and go full on "I don't know, it doesn't exist and I don't want to know any different".

In this case, you're literally going "globally recognized best of the best of the industry are akshually just poorly planned and organized".

Even the most cursory observation of reality will point at the obvious opposite, but you don't want to know that. So you actively shield your eyes from reality.

The entire positive side to bureaucracies and committees and governments is that they have enough people in them to do multiple things at once.

Usually when someone says something like what you said and I quoted above here, they are trying to argue that human drivers shouldn't exist. Maybe this is true, for some particular set of truths, but there's always a number of ways you can look at a situation. For example, I would argue that no one and no computer should be driving in the bulk of situations we are currently driving in, because cars are a terrible mode of transportation in the cities where most people live.

That's true, but that doesn't make what you said above correct. Left and right are very, very different things, and it very much does matter which you get.

It's that we all know this is a grift and we're all trying to figure out how the grift works.

I can think of a few possible things but I don't have enough of a finance background to really say for sure of what they are up to, but I know damn well that billionaires don't just hand out billions of dollars for the hell of it. There is a reason that Bill Gates is still one of the wealthiest people on the planet despite telling us 20 years ago he was going to give away his fortune.

Billionaires have been lying to us for as long as we've had billionaires, some of us just figured that out

But given this administration's history of corrupting everything they touch it's not something we should get behind from this administration because it's almost guaranteed to turn into some kind of scam that puts money in their pockets.

There is nothing wrong with a sovereign wealth fund per se if your government is relatively uncorrupted. Ours is not, the Trump administration is without a doubt the most corrupt and criminal administration in American history and that is saying a lot.

Simply put you cannot expect good things to come out of this administration even if the underlining ideas are fine. And I don't think that's any kind of exaggeration or partisan bickering. The Trump administration is openly murdering Venezuelan fishermen in the lead up to another war for oil without even the slightest pretexts. That alone should tell you we are in for a bad time. You don't have to be a genius to extrapolate from that data point and the dozens of other data points like the illegal tariffs or the huge bribes like the cryptocurrency or the jet Qatar gave the Trump or the fact that the taxpayer is going to be retro fitting that jet for his use...

If I had to guess, and it's just a guess, I would say that they are positioning themselves to profit from the money put aside for the kids. Probably sitting themselves up to redirect the money being invested in the companies that they own.

The one thing we can be sure of though is that this is a scam and the only question is what are the details of the scam.

You don't become a billionaire by being altruistic. People who genuinely care about society at Large stop accumulating wealth long before they become billionaires. To become a billionaire requires a certain level of sociopathy. There's a reason why the old phrase, never ask a Man how he made his first million, exists. That phrase has been around so long that a million dollars isn't a lot of money anymore but you get the idea.

The supreme Court has overruled 94% of the lower court rulings Trump has lost. It's painfully obvious they will just rubber stamp anything Trump wants. More importantly anything the heritage foundation and Peter thiel wants. Trump can't stay awake through an entire cabinet meeting so it's not so much that he wants anything but he would like to stay in power because he is making billions of corruption and bribes.

Meanwhile the Republican party does not have a viable candidate for 2028. Vance is a joke and a couch fucker and the rest of them are so mired and scandal they are completely unelectable. None of them have Trump's Teflon because they aren't perceived as outsiders.

So the Republican party is going to run Trump unless Trump is physically incapable of running. Meanwhile the news media will protect Trump and will convince the public that it is perfectly normal for Trump to run for a third term. We saw this in 2024 with sane washing. Which is the practice of crazy shit Republicans do, especially anything crazy Trump does being reported as normal and good in the news media.

This probably isn't enough for Trump to actually win a third term but the Republican party will use common voter suppression tactics to stop enough casual voters from making it to the polls in order for Trump to win.

It is possible the voters won't buy into this but at the same time they did elect a felon with 28 credible rape accusations for a second term because he promised cheap eggs and because trans people gross them out...

And of course if anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory it's the Democratic party. They are on track to nominate Gavin newsom and he's fine but I could easily see them coming up with some scandal to take him out so they can put yet another unpopular woman forward. There is a contingency of the Democrat party that is obsessed with the first female president and will do anything to get it. And unfortunately they have a lot of pull in the party...

So yeah Trump cares because Trump is going to run for a third term. This is why he's backing off on some of his tariffs

I actually know quite a few people with Fold phones and precisely zero of them think the creases are in any way a discouragement from the real-estate you get when using it. A perfectly flat screen isn't everyone's deal breaking feature. Make no mistake these phones are not designed for everyone, they are a niche product for a minority.

Literally every Samsung Fold phone has a 1st party case (as well as 3rd party cases) that are designed specifically to cause the phone to sit flat with the camera bulge. Even Samsung's current flagship lineup (as 3 the flagship lineup preceeding it, oh and the mid-tier A series lineup) have camera bulges. This is something that seemingly doesn't impact sales in any way.

Hardly. Bush himself was proud of the tax cuts. It's hardly disparaging to say he cut taxes when he was proud of doing so. Tax cuts (or rises) are typically always colloquially called after the person who implemented them regardless of whether they were good or bad.

That really is nothing like the other examples.

What if someone tells them to run that command, they don't understand that command, and were told that command solves a completely different problem they presented with? Is that still the user's fault?

Yeah the guy is an idiot, but then 99% of computer users are. They aren't like you or I. Anyone who understands the first 5 words of your post is not a normal user in the computer world. Does that mean we get a free pass to victim blame them?