I thought all your yankee cars were automatics? Why are automatics rolling backwards?

Waymo says its cars are safer than humans, dupont says teflon is part of a healthy balanced diet, whatever-the-cigarette-company's-name-was says smoking is harmless, some other dipshits say asbestos has no long term effects....

Get back to me when independent scientific tests and studies show how safe they are.

What is needed is some relays in series with the car's electrical systems and a switch or switches to control the relays.
When you park the car, use the switches to de-energise the relays and thus electrically isolate the car's electronic systems ( this will also handily stop the engine ).
When you want to use the car again, use the switches to enable the relays and thus power the car's electronic systems.

I really don't understand how everyone uses computers for everything all day every day and yet still think robot cars will be safe.
Everything glitches, occasionally runs slow, overheats, terminates etc but somehow the robot cars will work fine in an environment where death and disaster may be only milliseconds away?
Why will the robot car negotiating wirelessly with the other robot cars to let it merge into their lane be successful when earphones lose their pairing for no reason?

The writer of the article says " unlike traditional workers, creators have no predictable paycheck or job protections, making career stability elusive."

Is this being written in the 1960s ? Traditional jobs have had no predictability, protections pay rises or promotions since the early seventies. Career stability went away about the same time as the Apollo programme.

I don't think the number of test flights is too high considering it is a mission profile that has never been done before, using engines that are still in development.
A 'traditional' rocket is lucky to get 5% of the launch mass into orbit, spacex are trying to reach orbit whilst having enough extra fuel to land the booster stage, enough heat shielding to re-enter the upper stage and enough control surface area to guide the upper stage to a precise landing point and have enough fuel left for a propulsive landing. Nobody had data on hypersonic airflow around a vehicle of that size and there are no wind tunnels that can do 27,000 km/h to test with.

Shuttle/Buran are the closest comparison and they did many test flights before they even put rockets on them (or put them on rockets, if you prefer).

Hmm... good points but an ethical company can have a change of owner, a change of management or just a change of mind and become evil.
  I avoided $EVILBANK and opened an account with $NICEBANK , then a few years later they were taken over. Or compare at the hobbyist-friendly Apple II with the glued-together intrusive nightmare we have now.

"Hackers Are Exploiting Recently Patched WordPress Bugs" ?
They must be pretty rubbish patches if hackers can still exploit the bugs.

So you are saying I should buy the dip?

The whole Apollo programme was $25 billion .
Boeing spent the best part of a decade and $1 billion trying to build a SST and never flew one prototype. That has to be the definition of trying and failing.

I think the point was that whatever market there was for supersonic passenger aircraft would be served by Concorde as Boeing tried AND FAILED to make a supersonic airliner.
America certainly thought there was a business case for supersonic passenger travel, the 747 was designed with its cockpit up there because they expected to convert them to cargo aircraft once all the passenger market had moved to supersonic aircraft.

There will be another few rounds of this.
Even if the greybeards manage to cobble together guidelines and fixes for AI so that it doesn't make the current crop of design errors before being laid off again, the next version of AI will not work the same way with the guidelines and fixes and will find new ways to make new errors.

"There are lots of extremely successful companies who treat their people right"

Name one.

I understand the mechanics and incentives of the mining enabling the growth of the blockchain, I just think that a few thousand individual nerdy enthusiasts mining on a spare cpu and using bitcoin to pay for goods exchanged within their group (although across geographic and fiscal borders) would have been sustainable. The arms race of speculative mining and the use of bitcoin to do large-scale crime is what has led us to the vast power consumption to enable a comparatively small number of transactions that we see today We just can't have nice things, it seems.

If it had stayed as a quirky, niche little way for a few thousand nerds to exchange value over the internets, it would probably have been quite useful.
It was the rampant speculation that ruined it.