IAmBroom

That's not what "tied to the dollar" means.

The yuan is not tied to the dollar, but can be traded for dollars. Same for Euros, gold, and bricks of heroin.

OK, that last one has to be converted to bitcoin first....

Your experience is valid, and the emotional response probably serves a survival goal, but it still is not data.

You think it's normal for the FBI to send blackmail letters to alleged rapists? I think it's more because they were trying to kill MLK.

He was more evil than you have imagined. Par for the course for a closer inspection of him.

I wouldn't trust anything from the FBI at that time. Period.

Par for the course. No surprise at all. Putin is willing to compliment anyone who doesn't embarrass him AND may be of use later.

But he's thin-skinned, like all dictators, and one critique could sour him.

> A self-driving train will happily cause a crash, if the target is "drive with high-speed in that segment currently occupied by another train".

Sure, if you allow trains to ignore safety completely, then accidents will occur. That is a ridiculous statement.

GPS-based PTC absolutely does what you describe. It has long been solved.

Tunnels are controlled by a single block - only one train can ever be allowed access at once, period. Until the "current" occupant train is verifiably out of the tunnel, that block is forbidden to all.

Forests are irrelevant; rail right-of-way contains no trees, and is wide enough to assure clear "view" of satellites.

> We can not design self-driving cars to the safety standard that is required for railways.

That is completely false. PTC does that, and we've had it for several decades. There are several self-driving cars operating in the world right now. I have never heard of a PTC system causing accidents; those occur in places where the system isn't required (like entering Grand Central).

You keep pretending that avoiding train collisions is too magical to achieve with current tech, but train traffic is easy to limit (but slightly harder to optimize), and systems exist to do that, because rail is unique amongst all forms of travel: if you drop speed to zero for any trains at risk of collision, they are safe. Planes will plummet; most cars are human-operated and you can get rear-ended, etc.

In a modern passenger rail control system[0], ignoring the warnings results in automated responses like dumping all the hydraulic pressure, setting all brakes at once. This will have two effects: (1) the wheels will slide on a fixed spot, grinding a flat spot, and (2) the operator will either require central control to remotely release the emergency brake state, OR the operator will have to continue at the safest (lowest) speed.

What I'm saying is: false positives should not be ignorable, and modern systems take that choice away (at least, just before the situation becomes unavoidable in worst-case analyses).

That being said, previous fatal accidents in Spain's high-speed rail have resulted in "primitive" uncontrolled areas between controlled areas. Those SHOULD NOT exist. You are essentially saying "lives don't matter that much here " ($/life).

[0] I work in rail safety.