Steam serves humanity, and humanity is full of humans.
Some humans are better at getting along and cooperating with others, than other humans.
Pretending it isn't so, isn't going to make them go away.

JK Rowling would spend every single night experiencing what it’s like to be driven to suicide by anti-trans bigots. Tom Cotton would relive the terror of waiting for 40 minutes to be blown up on repeat. Musk would starve to death a hundred times a night.

These people deserve to lead haunted lives.

You'd think he would at least be data driven. And data says that harsher punishments (and especially capital punishment) have none or very little deterrent effect.

(Separating dangerous people from the society they hurt is effective at protecting society, though!)

PG&E caused me to install solar and batteries.
Not for the environment.
Not for the savings.
For the reliability!
(The others help, of course)

Having grown up in a country with a different age of consent, I also admit that this discussion can be confusing, yo!

But that's why we have laws. We may or may not like a particular law, but we should expect everyone to adhere to them!

We don't get to pick and choose which laws we obey.

I don't understand this response.

The SATs are not class exams and aren't about content recall. They predict probability of succeeding in college education, and they have useful predictive value in that regard.

Could be made better, probably, but I'm still waiting to hear the concrete proposals!

And here is what it tells ME about your cat situation.
Clearly, it tailors the output to each readers taste!

I think their argument is that the standardized tests should be more comprehensive and more long form.

Like, it's common to criticize current janky systems of all kinds, but it's much more rare to propose an improvement that is implementable, affordable, and actually improves overall outcome.

It does correlate with general intellectual ability though. Not perfectly, but strongly enough that it's more useful than flipping a coin in practice.

Are you saying the insurance company data is "self reported" by Waymo?

And why is "self reported" accident data from Waymo any different from accident data from all other drivers, that it's compared to?

Discard data that don't match your preconceived outcome is the bad faith here.

And they use self reported numbers, too!

Regulatory filings (where executives go to prison if they lie) and insurance reports (where humans versus machines can be clearly compared) are great data sources.

They don't show what you want them to show, so you say "sorry there's no data."

Tell that to data like "the unemployment numbers" that drive the federal reserve...

But, as I said, insurance companies are a good double check. That data shows Waymo is safer in the areas they operate.

Do you dislike Waymo for whatever other reasons, and are trying motivated reasoning here?

It was a lot *higher* in the past.

Also, stopping immigration isn't sustainable for maintaining the US *population*. A stagnant culture with no fertility quickly dies out.

I was thinking the Italian city that has no cars at all. It's actually a delightful experience, a car free city center, but also very touristy in that particular case...

Do you also want to burn all actual police cars?

Fair!

The Google data is reported to the state by law, and there are bad penalties if they lie, plus they are double checked with insurance companies, so it's at least as good as the data we have about private accidents.
(If anything, Waymos have fewer unreported hit-and-runs)