Saying that the reason FB is being targeted for anti-trust is that they are simply too successful feels like a vast oversimplification of the situation.
True, but I hear these conversations brought up against every tech company, regardless of what they are doing or why. Amputation may be a valid prescription for a patient, but if amputation is always the prescription, I may assume we are diagnosing wrongly.
No you don't. No one is pushing to break up Basecamp, or LinkedIn, or even companies that have actual documented histories of anticompetitive practices, like Oracle. I haven't even heard much chatter about breaking up Apple, altho that might ramp up as they move farther away from hardware into services and other areas. The conversation centers around FB, Google, and Amazon, for reasons that are unique to each of them.
Are you saying that breaking up the company is always the action from an antitrust case? That's entirely wrong. See for instance the antitrust actions against IBM leading to the 1936 consent decree and the 1956 consent decree, which changed IBM's behavior but didn't break up the company.
I'm pretty sure they're just referring to the immediate feedback of being able to practice by reading with one hand and playing with the other. You generally wouldn't be able to play a whole piece that way, but in comparison to most other instruments you don't have to do as much memorization up front.
You're right though, there are definitely plenty of other instruments that would work for. Trumpet for example would be an even better candidate I imagine.
You still need two hands to play the trumpet: one to hold the instrument up, the other to operate the valves. If you used only one hand to play and hold it, effectively the entire weight of the trumpet would have to be borne on your thumb.
I would strongly disagree. Trumpet music is MUCH simpler than piano music, as piano music is highly polyphonic (many notes at the same time), while wind instruments are only one note at a time (excluding a few VERY advanced techniques that are rare).
It may not have had good enough information to tell that she was a cyclist at all, and instead interpreted her to be something static/non-human altogether (in parent's example, a bush). Of course, without seeing the data its sensors gathered, and what that data registered as, it's all speculation. The problem is with misidentification, not bad priorities.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of classification problem involved. But wouldn't the AV by default treat a solid object on the road as a hazard to brake for? There's no possible way to specifically train for every variation of thing that could be encountered on a city street (imagine Halloween, for starters).
It was a 3-lane highway. It wouldn't really make sense to break if the system detected a immobile object in a different lane. The problem is more that the system failed to detect the woman moving between lanes.
But the system has the ability to detect whether an object is moving in parallel (i.e. within its own lane) vs. across lanes, right? That would seem to be fundamentally necessary in everyday conditions, e.g. day traffic in which cars are switching/merging lanes.
If the problem is that the system didn't detect the woman moving between lanes, then that seemingly contradicts the police statement that the victim moved quickly enough to surprise the AV and its driver.
I don't know that I would say contraceptives are the source of unhealthy attitudes towards sex in the US. Prudishness stemming from Western religious influences and the like seems more responsible.
No, I believe that they're talking about the ubiquitous need of a car for any given task. It would be nice if areas were designed such that a vehicle wasn't required to do more or less anything, be it restaurants, entertainment, general shopping, etc.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "We shouldn't therefore apply some aspects of cars to the broad meaning of car culture." It sounds like simply semantics at this point, that is, you infer a different meaning of "car culture" than the OP presents, but I don't feel that detracts from the point about the constructed necessity of cars.
I think it's okay to have some amount of an echo chamber, they happen more or less naturally just because of who you select to be in your personal sphere of influence, but I think I disagree with the way you describe it.
I don't think people need to exist in an echo chamber so they can "be themselves" without social consequence, I think that's actually the biggest problem with echo chambers and why people argue that they should be avoided. Rather, what we need is a higher standard of discourse outside of those echo chambers. It is possible to respectfully disagree with someone without shouting them down/trolling/removing them from the conversation, and from the other side, without reaching a point of disruption that someone might consider that a good resolution. The failure happens at both sides of the conversation, and interacting outside of echo chambers seems to me the only way to gain experience in interacting civilly.
Yeah, where did they get that number? As I understand it the FED hasn't met its target 2% inflation rate in years.
Edit: It seems I was somewhat mistaken: the FED set the 2% inflation goal in 2012[1] and hasn't met it since, but there are various ways to measure inflation, so it depends on who you talk to.
I agree. Placing a greater burden on the side of the producers to deal with the trash they produce seems like the most logical approach to me. If X company wants to make something with a bunch of plastic packaging they will have to pay for the impact that will have. If they want that to eat into their profits, fine, but I think the more likely scenario is that that they will pass as much of that cost on to consumers as they can, ideally also driving down demand for those products.
