Unless you’re suggesting that this man was involved in that situation, there’s room to feel sympathy for both murder victims.

This cop is either one of the ones committing atrocities, or one of the ones that stand by, hold the “thin blue line”, and enable the ones committing atrocities.

ACAB has no exceptions.

There hasn’t been a need for a new Civ since IV so I already wasn’t gonna buy it, but now I’m gonna not buy it even harder.

As Upton himself said: “I aimed for America’s heart, but I hit it in its stomach.”

Great question! The answer is that, well, you don’t, but that’s not what I’m intending unstained to mean here.

As it turns out, “unstained” is structurally ambiguous, because English has two different “un-” prefixes, each of which has different functions and different category selection requirements.

The first attaches to verbs, and means “reverse the action of”, e.g. un-tie, un-do, un-stain, etc. The second attaches to adjectives, and means “not X”, e.g. un-happy, un-satisfied, etc.

So, if we want to form the word “undoable”, we can either take the verb “do” and attach “-able” first, giving us an adjective “doable” to which we can then add “un-” to give us “undoable”, an adjective meaning “not able to be done” (“Flying by flapping your arms is undoable”)
OR
We can take “do” and add the other “un-” first, giving us a verb “undo” meaning “to reverse the action of something” to which we can then add the suffix “-able”, giving us “undoable”, a different adjective meaning “able to be undone” (“Simple knots are easily undoable”)

So, while both of these look and sound like the same word, they actually have different structures that correspond to the differences in their meanings.

In my OP, you read “unstained” as “unstain-ed”, with “un-” attaching to “stain” to give a verb “unstain” meaning “to reverse the staining of”, and then added the participle suffix, while my intended structure was to attach “stain” and “-ed” first, giving a participle (adjective) “stained”, to which we can then add the other prefix “un-”, giving “un-stained” “not stained”.

deleted by creator

This would be more like un-stained glass than stained glass.

Hawaii has wild cattle that you can hunt. Not native, but still quite wild, and very dangerous.

More like those Ancestral Archers down in Siofra. They’re hitting me with railguns travelling at Mach 12 from halfway across the map.

I think blue and red are supposed to be “Profit” and “Loss”, not revenues and costs, since I’m pretty sure all Olympics have both revenues and costs. Also, the Y-axis is already labeled deficit and surplus, so why not just use those instead of conflicting, misleading terms?

I still have deep-seated, instinctual nightmares of the merg.

Six years ago I tossed Warframe 10 bucks before I stopped playing to thank them for 500 amazing free hours, but that’s literally the only time I’ve ever made any sort of freemium purchase.

8 o’clock. Smooth, flavorful, and cheap!

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The movie debuted at the height of turtlemania in 1990 and became the highest grossing independent film ever at the time. It’s also a genuinely good movie.

Well this would have been fun if the stupid title hadn’t spoiled the whole thing.

The issue is not the overall track record on safety but how AV accidents almost always involve doing something incredibly stupid that any competent, healthy person would not.

As long as the overall number of injuries/deaths is lower for autonomous vehicles (and as you’ve acknowledged, that does seem to be what the data shows), I don’t care how “stupid” autonomous vehicles’ accidents are. Not to mention that their safety records will only improve as they get more time on the roads.

That’s probably true, but their handling of edge cases will only get better the more time they spend on the roads, and it already looks like they’re significantly safer than humans under normal circumstances, which make up the vast majority of the time spent on the road.

In December, Waymo safety data—based on 7.1 million miles of driverless operations—showed that human drivers are four to seven times more likely to cause injuries than Waymo cars.

From your first article.

Cruise, which is a subsidiary of General Motors, says that its safety record “over five million miles” is better in comparison to human drivers.

From your second.

Your third article doesn’t provide any numbers, but it’s not about fully autonomous vehicles anyway.

In short, if you’re going to claim that their track record is actually worse than humans, you need to provide some actual evidence.

Edit: Here’s a recent New Scientist article claiming that driverless cars “generally demonstrate better safety than human drivers in most scenarios” even though they perform worse in turns, for example.

Exactly. As early as the technology still is, it seems like it’s already orders of magnitude better than human drivers.

I guess the arbitrary/unfeeling impression of driverless car deaths bothers people more than the “it was just an accident” impression of human-caused deaths. Personally, as long as driverless car deaths are significantly rarer than human-caused deaths (and it already seems like they are much, much rarer), I’d rather take the lower chance of dying in a car accident, but that’s just me.

How does “driverless cars hitting people is so incredibly rare that a single instance of it immediately becomes international news” at all signify “boring dystopia”? If anything we should be ecstatic that the technology to eliminate the vast majority of car deaths is so close and seems to be working so well.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of ridiculously, insanely amazing.

Good.

I’m just waiting to see how they fuck up Monster Hunter Wilds at this point.