On the downside, there's less cost for being stupid which I think is probably bad for influencing cause-effect considerations, even though one effect is potentially death.
When I was a kid there was no nerf-padded society (late 70's into the 80's). If you made a stupid move on a bike, you bled on the ground and thought it over for a while. From that you got a very real sense of the implications of your actions and relied on your wits more, as not doing so would get you really screwed up.
I love the trend of "Let's fix technology. With more technology!" The constant one-up-manship and the preposterous amount of options of all these tech companies makes me yearn for the days of DOS.
I liked the "oh, I probably shouldn't have been texting right there" look on the girl's face and the fact that her brother laughed at her for it.
I once owned a 1968 GTX with 635 HP. The closest thing I could compare the acceleration to was taking off in a jet. It would bend back the racing seats on launch so it may've been able to produce this result.
Except that (probably) no one predicts where bullets go for a living whereas, for weather reporters (or, more accurately, meteorologists), it's their job.
I theorize if we started smashing them in the balls with a tackhammer every time they're wrong, you'd see both a mass exodus out of that field and a marked increase in accuracy.
There's a bunch of other id and Carmack related docs up there too if you look including the "Book of id" from the id Anthology and a few GameDevMag articles.
I installed Doom on my high school computers and carefully hid it so the technology department (who were clueless) couldn't find it (by putting it in a renamed subdir in the Windows dir and renaming the .exe and .wad file and handling running via a .bat). Tech class became "Let's go play Doom" class.
"AI : A Modern Approach" is considered the high-level standard text on the subject. It's coverage is fairly broad, but it prioritizes the idea of an AI "agent"; an autonomous "thing" attempting to understand its environment and make the best choices within the context of it's given priorities.
The "AI Game Programming Wisdom" books I own the first 2 volumes of. They're the same format as the "Game Programming Gems" (or "Graphics Gems" before that). That is, a series of articles written by many different authors on a smorgasbord of topics. Pros : Wide and sometimes highly-specific coverage and many code samples. Cons : Can be heavily cherry-picked in topic choices. May not be pertinent to anything you need specifically. Refer to the TOC on each respective volume to see if any of the articles pertain to what you need.
This doesn't mirror my own experience. Typically the 5-star reviews often fall into the category "worked great for me" or fanboyism, but it's generally ambiguous how extensive of a test they've performed on the item, if it even warrants it (though some reviews are exhaustive on this front). And 1-star reviews often are hyper-critical to excess, though any potential issues are often highlighted there, prompting me to read them first. Since all reviews end up with these extremes and the "is this review helpful" ironically isn't often helpful (more like, "do I agree with the review"), I always end up just going with my initial gut feeling on whatever I'm looking to buy anyways.