If you’re having an honest conversation here, the appeal to common sense is a fallacy.

You’re coming off pretty self-righteous and judgmental. If you’re wanting to change minds I doubt a accusatory stance is helpful.

I believe that “Indian Giving” is sourced in a cultural misunderstanding between Indigenous and European societies. Indigenous societies were reciprocity based, so giving gifts should be reciprocated with a gift of like value to strengthen relationships, or increase honour (social standing). The Europeans were working in a patron-client system so a gift was seen as a way of purchasing access to power through a patron. The Europeans thought the Indigenous people were paying for access to power (like a tributary), so there’s no expectation of returning a like gift. The indigenous people thought they were entering into a mutual relationship, and when a like gift wasn’t returned that was seen as reneging, so they took back their ‘offer’.

Glad to have an anthropologist kick my ass.

That’s not too fair. Poor guy. Someone has to fight back. Are we sure it wasn’t self-defense? Maybe they were trying to sink his yacht?

St. Augustine (4th c. Roman) notes in his “Confessions” seeing Bp. Ambrose of Milan reading silently to himself and is impressed. They had so much committed to text, it leaves you wondering? Were all their works composed talking it out out loud? I have whole arguments in my head.

I’m going to drill a bit deeper on this because I feel sympathy for people who are mired in systemic poverty, and stray into budget poverty in impulsive attempts to experience something nice.

It’s the people who buy $50k vehicle they can’t afford because they want to “fit in” that I have no sympathy for. For me it’s not about Puritanical judgment over how tightly utilitarian someone ought to be, but whether or not someone went into poverty for the sake of conspicuous consumption.

Oh. Are you telling me the anti-robot revolution hasn’t actually begun? Well, that’s disappointing. Thanks for taking the time to straighten me out.

Wait … That’s exactly what a ROBOT would say!

I want as few cars as possible, mixed zoning, and walkable cities.I don’t believe in a technocentris utopia. I want more quality relationships, and technology in our lives to be more restrained. I am in no way an advocate for the status quo (which by all accounts is AI and robot cars). Robot cars are a step in the wrong direction.

Not unless that human driver was blindly following their navigation app like a total idiot. A person would have said, “oh shit, I want to get out of here.”

Anyway, I believe under it all we’ve got a tension between generally two different worldviews: those who believe Star Trek is utopia, and those who would rather life was more Hobbittish.

Personally, The Shire sounds like a nice place to live. Can we choose that please? You can still have computers, let’s just chill on the whole racing to meet our cyberpunk future.

The article states that there was no known motive, but it also states that automated cars in SF have been attacking people and emergency vehicles, in addition to blocking traffic for human drivers.

It’s pretty clear that this is the beginning of the anti-robot revolution.

Yeah, can you imagine the shit storm if someone rigged up traffic lights with some strobe effect and RGB LEDs to make driving, “fun, attractive, and accessible to more people.”

In my cynicism I’ll venture that if pedestrians were required to carry insurance for collisions, insurance companies would not let these cross walks stick around for a hot 5 minutes.

My physics teacher used to get mad at us. “2.63? … 2.63 what?! Slug lengths?!”

This was not the dumbest thing to say at all. For all your extra words, those high frequencies are de facto line of sight. If you live in the mountains anywhere remotely rural you know this is true. Also, the low frequency bands are known for their penetration and diffraction, but even VHF (~150MHz) is considered line of sight due to its low diffraction. On what basis are you so confident? Neither physics or empirical evidence back you up. Pretty high-handed with your, “dumbest thing to say,” comment.