As I understand it, the purpose of ABS is to let you slam on your brakes and NOT swerve. If your wheels lock up then you lose all steering authority. ABS lets you slam your brake to the floor and still be able to keep your car on the road using the steering wheel. If your car doesn't have ABS, then you should know that and know to "pump your brakes" instead, to maintain control of the car.
If a child jumped in front of my car, I'd swerve even if that meant risking a tree. If I ran over a child I don't know that I'd be able to live with myself anyway, so the choice is clear: I risk myself to improve the odds of the child making it away unscathed. But a deer? No way in hell. I'll slam on the brakes, since my car has ABS, but I would not take my chances with swerving.
Yes, if you are driving responsibly then using the brakes is always an option. All cars have brakes; they're required to by law. If using the brakes is not an option then you already fucked up (e.g. you were going too fast on a slippery road.)
Of course it does, and that's why I was taught that if the condition of the road would make slowing your vehicle unsafe at the speed you are moving, then you were going too fast. The speed limit is not a "safe in all conditions" speed; you are expected to drive substantially slower than the speed limit if road conditions are poor. Didn't they teach you that? Do you even have a drivers license?
I grew up in rural PA, learned to drive there and lived there for several years afterwards. I've seen rain and snow. I've seen more deer than you can shake a stick at. I've never driven into one, though once one slammed into the side of my car. It isn't rocket science; if the road or visibility conditions are poor, slow the fuck down. Poor visibility includes brush or tall grass by the side of the road, because deer hide in that shit. If you see it, particularly at night, slow the fuck down.
Edit:
Did you even watch the video Jacques? The deer did not jump into the side of the vehicle, the deer jumped well in front of the car, with plenty of time to stop. I swear people on this site will pretend to be complete retards to defend Tesla. "Use your brakes to avoid a collision? I had no idea that was considered a best practice!" No. Fuck off.
No!? You're supposed to not swerve, but you sure as shit are supposed to brake! If you can't safetly slam on the brakes because somebody was tailgating you or because the road surface is too slippery, then you already fucked up before the deer appeared!
In my profession I take deep pride. To it I owe solemn obligations.
As an engineer, I, (full name), pledge to practice Integrity and Fair Dealing, Tolerance, and Respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making best use of the Earth's precious wealth.
As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good.
In the performance of duty, and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give the utmost.
---
I get the impression this ring is not for "software engineers". I really dislike that term, I call myself a computer programmer to anybody who asks, regardless of the title my employer flatters me with. I think "software engineer" is leaching off the social prestige real engineers have earned for their professions. Prestige the software industry in general does not yet deserve. Programmers take jobs making shitty socially harmful products then deflect all blame to their employers, denying their own responsibility to society that oath describes.
I am sure there are some programmers who deserve it, but by in large, the term is used by companies to flatter code monkeys making gambling apps, spyware, social media skinner boxes, etc. I am not without sin here, so I refuse to call myself an engineer.
They might claim they do, on their paperwork, website, etc. But what is the reality when they're actually in the air? Do you think stewardesses on these private jets are really in the habit of making demands of their multimillionaire customers? Somehow I doubt it.
Your 'Reality: [...] End of story' claim does not contradict the title. They may automatically have a truck license, but also have never driven a truck.
If I got a truck license more than 20 years ago (before 1999) but never drove a truck in my life, I would definitely feel uncomfortable driving a truck. Shit, I feel a bit uncomfortable driving my car after a two or three month break. For 20 years to elapse between licensing and putting that activity into practice seems justifiably eyebrow raising to me. The headline doesn't even mention the 20 elapsed years part of it.
In the rural Pennsylvanian I grew up in, the multimillionaire family that owned the town plant went to the same church as most of the rest of the town (excepting catholics), sent their kids to the same public school, and generally socialized freely with the rest of the town. One of their daughters was the same age as me and, although not a friend, was a close acquaintance for as long as I can remember up until the end of highschool when I moved away. That family was as you describe, 'nearly indistinguishable' from the rest of the town. Nearly indistinguishable, except there was no mistaking who they were because the plant was named after them, as was the highschool's football field (which they apparently paid for.) Also, the nearest "shopping mall" was about half an hour away. Shopping as a hobby was alien to me, nobody I knew did that until I went to college.
Point is, America is a big place. If you think you understand America after watching a bunch of American movies and TV shows, you probably don't.
Interesting that a "33 percent increase" is the same thing as 0.105% to 0.14%. Those latter two figures are both a lot lower than I would have guessed.
Potassium nitrate (the main ingredient of gunpowder) has historically been used as a preservative, particularly for curing meat. Some people might still use it, but these days sodium nitrite is more common.
I'd guess tomatoes are fine. I'd definitely think twice before eating carrots or potatoes from such a garden though, even washed and pealed thoroughly (and normally I wouldn't peal those.)
Not that I don't support warning disclaimers on facebook, but "designed to manipulate your emotional state" certainly applies to all movies, music, most books, etc. A big difference between these things and facebook is that facebook is reactive. It constantly measures your emotional state and modifies what it presents you with. Movies, music and books don't do that (yet?)
Facebook reacts to you reacting to facebook; putting you inside a control loop. Facebook is more akin to a car salesman than a movie director; a car salesman who knows virtually everything about you because he's MITMed your social interactions for years, and can modify his individualized approach to manipulating you minute by minute.
To be frank, I do not want to get that book nor do I want my name to be in their system as somebody who is interested in that book. A search of their online catalogues through Tor was enough to confirm my suspicion that they would not have the book generally available. My understanding of how librarians think about and consider "banned books" comes from my interactions with a few librarians in my social circle; the search for the book was simply to illustrate my point with an example.
Most people don't want to read most earnestly banned books. It's a very notorious book though, it would probably garner more attention than many uncontroversial books in the long tail of most library collections, which are neither loved nor hated, notorious nor famous.
But a lot of the people interested in reading it would probably have right wing inclinations, and the average librarian doesn't want to support that sort of thing (not least because the nazis themselves were big on book burning..)
When librarians speak of banned books, they are talking about books other people wanted banned, not the books librarians themselves wanted banned.
Harry Potter gets on these lists because some christian groups in America demanded that librarians remove the book from their shelves, while the librarians didn't want to. But books that the librarians themselves chose to not stock don't get on the list, because to a librarian, a librarians job is to select which books to stock and which not to. You are very unlikely* to find a copy of Myth of the 20th Century on the shelves of your local public library, not because of external pressure but because the librarians themselves think that people shouldn't read it. And to librarians, that is not banning.
*(I checked. Of the two library systems I have a card for, one doesn't have it and the other has a single copy in German, which they won't let you check out, but no copies in English. Since this is an American library, the German copy would be inaccessible to huge swaths of the population anyway.)
It's both, either, or neither. The spelling he used is common and widely accepted. According to legend Rochambeau played it, but there is no evidence for that. The earliest written reference to the word doesn't spell it like the French general's name, though similar enough to plausibly be a corruption of it. However it may also be a corruption of the japanese name for the game.
Anyway, I'd guess he was downvoted because a lot of people here have an old justified hate of flash and thought his comment signaled tribal allegiance to the opposite camp.
The Zeroth law, which permits a robot to harm individuals if it's good for the collective humanity, is certainly cause for concern. But it's scarcely the only concern. The three laws are riddled with holes which Asimov used as plot generators for his robot stories. Consider the Solarian formulation of the first law: Robots are not permitted to kill humans [where 'human' is defined to only include Solarian.]
But even when the laws haven't been tampered with, they're still filled with holes, traps, oversights, etc. The first law states "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." This law requires a robot to intervene when a human is doing something the robot considers risky. A robot operating under this rule might grab you off your skateboard, because it judges skateboarding to be risky and is required to take action to prevent that possible harm ("A robot may not [...] through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm") That inaction clause could be removed, but that introduces other problems.
If a child jumped in front of my car, I'd swerve even if that meant risking a tree. If I ran over a child I don't know that I'd be able to live with myself anyway, so the choice is clear: I risk myself to improve the odds of the child making it away unscathed. But a deer? No way in hell. I'll slam on the brakes, since my car has ABS, but I would not take my chances with swerving.