I don’t think shooting the rain would help much…

Some of them did, many voted against it. And of those who didn’t vote at all, many of them didn’t have an option to vote.

As long as they stop siphoning money from us, I’m fine with that

That’s what’s fun about the whole establishment coming out swinging against him - he just won the primary. He’s not even elected yet, and they are losing their shit.

(also, didn’t notice until after posting that you’d posted 2 days ago - sorry for the necro post!)

…I think I’d still rather have AOC kick my ass than have to touch Trump.

Women candidates have struggled in the past, but it’s looking like Harris at least lost because of voter machine rigging.

Realizing cognitive dissonance can often manifest as anger - is it possible you were beginning to get through to them? Obviously I wasn’t there, I’m just looking for more information!

The police running into the crowd are violent, certainly; as is the white mob. The response to a movement being violent doesn’t make the movement violent, any more than getting mugged makes the victim violent.

I understood US Civil Rights movement to be peaceful, as in the people in the movement did not instigate violence. Calling a protest violent because those in power struck back violently seems nonsensical to me.

Think I missed something - what’s the thing with orcas and billionaires?

Nice, thanks!

It sounds utopian…

It’s not that we don’t want robots doing it - honestly that’d be pretty cool. It’s that we want to be sure the people that are being replaced are being taken care of.

There will always be some jobs. That’s no guarantee that there will be enough jobs for everyone to live modest lives on.

Why is that the comparison, though? Sears developed mail-order catalogues in the 1800s. That’s what Amazon replaced.

…okay, I really want to know the story behind that picture!

Reading through the article, it seems like one scenario is that a vehicle stopped at an intersection might be about to pull out, endangering another vehicle about to cross? It seems like the thinking is, if you notice a front/side brake light stops being lit as you approach the intersection, it might indicate they’re about to accelerate - be cautious!

I’m not fully convinced either, it seems like a lot of the benefit they’re projecting is based on analysis of historical collisions, rather than any kind of experimental results. It sounds like the study is to justify expanding research to that sort of simulated experimentation, though - I’m curious what that kind of testing would find.

Weird? That sounds like a healthy interest in history to me.

Besides, if people had more interest in, for instance, how Nazis came to power 100 years ago, the political landscape in the US, Canada, and Europe might be a little healthier now.

The implied issue with that phrase is you risk your own glass house being pelted, correct? The glass house, in this case, being atrocities each government is implicated in?

I’m fine with all the atrocities being called out. Otherwise, how do we learn not to do them anymore?

Sounds like it can help oncoming traffic as well as traffic to either side of the vehicle