hmmm-i-wonder

>Look at how the US is being seen by the international community. The reputation we had as a strong ally and worthwhile partner has been badly damaged. Why would other nations want to help us now? How are we stronger alone, instead of having their eager support?

As a Canadian, you just made the argument for strategic value for us. The economic damage caused at the whims of a single person in control of our supposed closest ally is exactly why. The argument for economic "MAD" assumes one country wont be self destructive enough to cut its leg off to spite everyone else and "win" in a way that leaves it worse off.

I would also say Nike WANTS to be a lifestyle brand, but in public perception they haven't been able to move out of an athletic shoe brand.

>You seem to want to finish this argument without actually looking at any statistics.

I provided statistics on deaths and put the US in scope, and asked for you to provide proof of your claim the US is singularly the worst offender (its not).

I've not once claimed the US is not bad as you continuously suggest and attack (straw men as usual for trolls). I have simply stated that your claim the US is egregious is naive and myopic. You only prove that by failing to provide any numbers that put the US in context to back your own point.

>Since March 2003

Curious starting point. I tend to take a much longer view, but even within your own cherry picked 10 year window from earlier you are wrong.

Canada has etransfer/interact which works well.

>How much do you trust your government with your money?

Well I'm in Canada, I would trust the govt and the banks with my money before I trust anyone else (yes yes, trucker protest bullshit still didn't shake my confidence)

Which is ultimately the problem. The govt and well regulated banks are the only ones you should be able to trust, but in many case you can't trust governments or their ability to regulate things.

Have you actually looked at the numbers or are you just bound and determined to stick to your opinion regardless of facts or reality?

As shown, the US isn't the top or the majority of deaths in war over your chosen time period. Your have provided no actual basis for your claims the US is the worst, let alone the worst "by far".

Either put up facts to attempt to prove your argument or be dismissed as an ignorant troll I'm ok with either outcome.

Man I really needed that last month playing with some friends. Would have been hilarious and more fun!. Bit of a reducto-ad-absurdum though isn't it.

But in all seriousness there is a difference between something that is forgiving and something that requires a high degree of practice to master. If its a hobby, get what is forgiving.

If you can't see the wisdom in that advice, well you can lead a horse to water eh.

Down 6% in premarket, will have to wait and see but likely wont help them much as tariffs will impact a significant amount of their products regardless.

I certainly wont disagree with the US not representing any moral heights especially now, however do you have sources for the US being particularly egregious in relation to its peers in its actions?

Opposite advice. Take the best equipment and enjoy the game the most, focus on strategy with the increased options and capabilities.

So much time and frustration wasted with inferior equipment that sucks the life out, or requires a path of practice and mastery most people don't want for hobbies or things they enjoy doing.

If YOU want to use the least helpful tools and make up the difference with knowledge, skill and practice that's OK. To each their own and if you enjoy that then 100%. Just remember some people enjoy things in a lot of different ways.

>You don't treat every possible hypothesis as potentially valid.

Wrong, you consider and reject hypothesis if we're being specific about the scientific method. In this case, this is a testable question that could be measured but from common metrics isn't accurately measured for humans to compare to. There is no valid rejection of the hypothesis without more data.

The utility of the hypothesis and the work required is one of many things considered and another discussion.

But actually considering and discussing them IS the scientific and rational method. Your knee-jerk reactions are the closest thing to ludditism in this whole conversation.

>And likewise a proper response is emphatically not to respond to an actual measurement within a commonly accepted paradigm (c.f. the linked headline above) with a response like "well this may not be measuring the right thing so I'm going to ignore it". That is pretty much the definition of ludditism.

Again wrong. In almost every case the correct first questions are "are we measuring the right thing", again if we are talking about engineering and science, that's always valid and should ALWAYS be considered. I also never said we should IGNORE crashes, I asked if its the BEST metric for success on its own.

And for your third incorrect point

>That is pretty much the definition of ludditism.

Obviously missed my point in every posts, including the one above. Whether "crashes" is the best metric is being applied to humans and technology, there is no anti-technology going on here.

Your emotional reaction to someone questioning something you obviously care about seems to have shut down your logical brain. Take a deep breath and just stop digging.

This is exactly the question I was asking, thanks for your input. I know the highlighted examples of 'bad behaviour' in waymo's are somewhat sensationalized, but its hard to quantify how that translates to impacting other users of the environment. I agree humans are very prone to this sort of bad driving, which was what made me ask the question about waymo to begin with. Specifically things like lane keeping, impacts on cyclists pedestrians etc... things you mention.

Although my brain can't help but see waymo's more as "Meatwagons" than human driven cars, I get your point :)

It would be curious to see relative levels of driver assist and its impacts on things like that outside of crash and injury statistics from crashes, but it would be very hard to measure and quantify.

I wouldn't say its contrived, but I agree its important to take such questions and back them up with data.

My question is open in that we don't really HAVE data to measure that statement in any meaningful way. The proper response is "that could be valid, we need to find a way to measure it".

Resorting to calling me a luddite because I question whether a metric is really an accurate measure of success (one that I apply to HUMAN drivers as an example first...) really doesn't reflect any sort of scientific approach or method I'm aware of, but feel free to point me to references.

Is crash the best indicator of success?

I know some really bad drivers that have almost no 'accidents', but have caused/nearly caused many. The cut off others, get confused in traffic and make wrong decisions etc...

Waymos, by media attention at least, have a habit of confusion and other behaviour that is highly undesired (one example going around a roundabout constantly) but that doesn't qualify as a 'crash'.

We're talking about the average citizen with a rifle and no training against a dictator/tyrant.

In Ukraines case, that civilian group was not initially effective at stopping the attack, but your example of the defence force is an example of a supported reserve force digging in backed by logistics and support from a military/country.

Those are 2 different things. My contention is that unrestricted access to arms doesn't in any way turn an untrained populace into a reserve force.

You're attempt to frame it as "dictator + small loyalist military" as well as focusing solely on urban settings are a fun hypotheticals, but that's all they are. The reality is that actions like that in a developed nation result in an almost certain war if external or fracturing of countries internally in any real scenario with civilians supporting militaries/militias on the various sides.

There is no reasonable assumption that unrestricted access to arms will stop a tyrant from destroying the country and tossing it into some form of civil war. The accompanying fact those people aren't trained, organized, or supported by logistics is the fundamental reason why they will fail to be effective. (I could also digress into the well organized militia and if we want to get all originalist about the interpretation but this has been unproductive enough)

What we are really discussing is whether gun regulations make sense. Extreme edge cases like your hypotheticals fail to make a convincing argument they are a negative for society, especially when contrasted against the harms lack of regulations has been shown to cause society.