Roodgorf

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.

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.

I assume the complaint is that it doesn't word wrap so most of the text is cut off.

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 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.

> implies anything that encompasses cars.

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.

There were also plenty of reputable political science models that actually did predict a Trump win, so, it all depends on who you put your faith in.

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.

That's what I was commenting on though; I very well may be wrong, but my understanding was that the weight of things like barbells is measured in pounds-force, not pounds-mass, so if you were going to follow that on the moon you'd need a much more massive set of weights.

Though, I suppose if you're saying "I'm taking these exact same weights to the moon to lift" then you're right. I was being unnecessarily pedantic.

Wouldn't trying to deadlift more than 400 pounds be the same amount of effort on the moon? Granted, it would have to be that much more massive, so it would certainly LOOK more impressive.

More than two months is quite a bit of time to 'figure things out', even by military standards, and I don't see any good reason to deny him access to a lawyer during that process anyway.

That doesn't really sound like an ethical argument so much as the impetus for it.

Doesn't that still end up being financial? If someone is banned from collecting data and is later found to have been doing so anyway, the most likely recourse is fines, right? Or are you suggesting this would imply criminal consequences (i.e. jail)?