I am not making an analogy for the entire situation.

lol

I recognize that. That’s why I said two wrongs don’t make a right. The OP was saying it was unfathomable how the people stripping cars could be in any way ethically wrong. I was pointing out that it is definitely debatable whether it was ethical.

I was illustrating a point - it’s not meant to be a direct analogy, but that taking advantage of the literal language of a contract, and interpreting it to mean something different from what it was intended can be ethically dubious.

Well, we can agree to disagree then.

You’re good legally, same as in Volkswagen, the comment was about whether it was unfathomable that it could be wrong ethically.

While it can be debated either way, it is in no way “unfathomable”.

You do realize that tech jobs, out of anything, are one of the easiest to base in foreign countries. If you end H1-Bs, and the U.S doesn’t have enough skilled workers for that job, all that’s going to happen is every major tech company will just open up a new headquarters in India, and just move all of their previous…

You do realize that tech jobs, out of anything, are one of the easiest to base in foreign countries. If you end H1-Bs, and the U.S doesn’t have enough skilled workers for that job, all that’s going to happen is every major tech company will just open up a new headquarters in India, and just move all of their previous…

A lot of other points have been made already, but I just want to point out that humans (as a whole population) are inherently incapable of piloting cars without wrecking it. Humans make flawed judgment calls, misjudge distances and speeds, have blind spots, suffer from fatigue.

Though, I’m glad McCain withdrew his endorsement in response to this latest comment.

I think it’s more of a combination of the amount it’s worth (a normal ring might not be worth the risk of a complicated heist, $10million is), and at the same time broadcasting publicly her location, when she’s alone, etc.

(Sorry I posted my response to your comment about numbers killed before seeing the dozens of similar comments).

You’re wrong there (understandable, since I’m sure your history lessons were biased towards the western front in Europe. In China alone, the Japanese killed 8 million civilians, and were responsible for up to 20 million total deaths.

Might as well say that all no company should make a car going more than 65 mph, because the general public are idiots and will be dangerous going 130 in a 50 zone.

could easily add ABS, traction control, etc, to that list. It’s a safety feature, and a good idea - as long as it’s responsibly used.

Same reason some people buy new clothes instead of going to the goodwill, or a new car instead of used...

Just means better sensors/cameras needed. Many DSLRS already can “see” better than the human eye, not to mention various sensors that can see what the human eye can’t. At the rate technology moves, it’s closer than you think.

The trailers being loaded different and behave differently is probably better handled and corrected by a PC than a human driver. The rest just need better sensors, and programming to account for it.

It’ll be split up, since delivery drivers will still be needed (to move packages to the door). For pure hauling, it’ll probably be phased in two ways.