So the pedestrian crossed the road directly in front of a car while wearing black at night? Incredibly foolish.
This is probably good for self-driving cars as a whole. We'll be able to learn from this incident without having to suffer the negative PR of killing somebody who wouldn't be dead otherwise.
That doesn't change the fact that posted speed limits are almost always slower than is reasonable. 38 mph is a reasonable speed on all but the windiest of roads.
Because the vast majority of passengers don't need dog handling. Why should millions of people who don't need dog handling be forced to subsidize the thousands that do?
By that logic, we should mandate all cars go 1 mph everywhere. Doesn't matter if it takes forever to get anywhere as long as no idiot jumping out in front of cars dies, right?
I don't know what your evidence for this is. There is a ton of competition in the smartphone market. I can name nine different companies competing against eachother just off the top of my head: Apple, Samsung, Huawei, OnePlus, Google, Essential, LG, HTC, Motorola, and Nokia.
It's amazing to me the number of friends I have who claim to be poor but then spend every weekend getting drunk at the bar.
If you can't afford $1000 to repair your car without going completely broke, you should not be going to restaurants, bars, concerts, movies, or anything else the average "poor" american blows their money on. Those are luxuries for people with disposable incomes. If you choose to spend your money on luxuries even though you have nothing in savings, you do not deserve sympathy when you eventually go broke.
I will be happier eating meat than I will eating meat-substitutes. Am I supposed to sacrifice my own happiness just so that lobsters can live longer?
Since I'm already sacrificing my happiness for the comfort of lobsters, why not go all out and build them little lobster mansions where we serve them sautéed seaweed with a hand-made orange remoulade glaze every night for dinner? (Can't serve them their preferred meal of crab because that would be immoral).
I don't understand this. You don't risk anything by opening a loot box. If you're going to ban loot boxes because they cause kids to play more video games, why not just ban video games entirely?
Also, the definition of loot box seems like it could be very fuzzy. For example, in the pokemon games when you walk through grass you run the risk of running into a wild pokemon. Sometimes the pokemon you run into is a rare pokemon that you want to catch and sometimes it's something you've already caught and don't care about. Is this a "loot box"? I know I sure spent a lot of time walking through grass on those pokemon games as a kid.
This is probably good for self-driving cars as a whole. We'll be able to learn from this incident without having to suffer the negative PR of killing somebody who wouldn't be dead otherwise.