Please state your destination (other than hell)

Slam on the brakes and run them over.

People are asking what a self driving car should do in all kinds of hypothetical situations. People appear out of nowhere, the driver has to decide, crash their car or hit the people. What if it's a lot of people? What if they are all babies?

Slam on the brakes and run them over.

Given a fraction of a second, that's what people do. They slam on their brakes and run people over. The idea that a person ever thinks "I have a choice, either smash into that 100 year old oak or run over those kids, I'll pick the tree," is ludicrous. If you have time to think that you should already be on your brakes (your self driving car will be).

This is not about ethics. You are not programming the car to kill the pedestrians. You are programming the car to drive. Just like you have been programmed to drive. You can't be ready for every situation. You can't be ready for most situations. Why do you think the average car is about half the width of a highway lane? So we have so much extra space that people can stop paying attention (maybe too much).

People won't want to get in a car that is, in any case, programmed to get into any crash. Do your best to stop the car and minimize problems. That's it. There is no "ethics" problem.

This is why we have a republic

Winston S. Churchill — 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'

Birth rate in the UK is about 1.8. Without immigration, they are pretty screwed.

Please mind the gap.

Quick, before they delay the train!

I take a short break from my election rants for this PSA. Make sure to watch until the very end.


"Oooh, that looked rough. You're all dismembered and stuff. Well, see ya!"

My Dear John letter

Dear John McCain,
Let me try to explain to you what the phrase "directly responsible" means. Take this hypothetical situation. Donald Trump is trying to punch Wayne LaPierre in the face. You, John, are holding Donald's arm. Then you let go and Donald's punches Wayne. Who is directly responsible? By your definition, you are. You know if you let go, Wayne's getting face punched. You let go. Ergo, you are directly responsible.
Except, no. At best, you are indirectly responsible. The person directly responsible is Donald. His fists his Wayne in the puss.
Also, Wayne is partly responsible just because he's such a dick.

It's a choice, not a census

I have overheard snippets of conversations in the last few weeks that can only mean one thing: there are people (not an insignificant amount) that do not know they can vote for anyone even if they are registered for a different part.
Although this was shocking at first, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that people might think that.
If you are registered in some party and have voted that ticket election after election, especially somewhere that has that convenient All My Party button/lever, you might start thinking that it is not a choice but an instruction.
Democracy!

Why does an omnipotent god need you to kill people?

• He doesn't. (You are going to hell.)
• He doesn't care. (Your religion is wrong.)
• He doesn't exist. (Your religion is a scam.)

Coprophiles Unite!

There's been another mass murder. It's been impossible not to hear about it. If there is anything else going on in the world, we would not know. I don't want to minimize this tragedy. About 50 people killed and another 50 or so injured. A tragedy for their families, say about 1000 people. A tragedy for their friends, say another 5000. One degree of separation, say another 300,000. In a country of over 300,000,000. That's 0.1%. Non-stop national news for 2 days for 0.1%. Some jackass's picture plastered on TV for a large part of that. A nice little incentive for the next jackass.

Clearly the media is to blame; except it is not. The media is a bunch of for-profit enterprises. They make money by showing ads to as many people as possible. If people stopped watching, the media would stop covering. But the people don't. As a group, they apparently can't. They are spoon fed their own shit and they gulp it down greedily. When dogs eat shit, we pull them away. We yell, "No!" We assume that eating shit is bad for them. Maybe it isn't. Maybe I'm the one making a mistake.

What could trump this?

A person with $10B should be earning at least $1-2M a day. A day! Please excuse me when I don't give a shit about $6M you "raised" for some group but seemingly forgot to give them.