AwesomeLowlander

Another button gets you a taxi ride with driver for $25, but there’s a slightly higher chance that a random person in your city dies. Which button do you prefer?

I agree with you, public transport is the best option. However, let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good.

More so when you take her actual statement in context: that they’re actually reducing deaths by being safer. The comments on lemmy are turning out to be just as biased and ungrounded in reality as they were on Reddit.

Waymo robotaxis are so safe that, according to the company’s data, its driverless vehicles are involved in 91 percent fewer crashes compared to human-operated vehicles.

And yet the the company is bracing for the first time when a Waymo does kill somebody — a moment its CEO says society will accept, in exchange for access to its relatively safer driverless cars.

Which is fucking weird tbh. You’d think this demographic would be the most logical about stuff and understanding that this is a step towards fully automated luxury gay space communism.

I feel like most of the comments in here didn’t even bother reading the article before grabbing the pitchforks.

Waymo robotaxis are so safe that, according to the company’s data, its driverless vehicles are involved in 91 percent fewer crashes compared to human-operated vehicles.

And yet the the company is bracing for the first time when a Waymo does kill somebody — a moment its CEO says society will accept, in exchange for access to its relatively safer driverless cars.

In context, without the clickbait headline, that’s a really reasonable take. They accept that statistically, they’re safer but due to large numbers and randomness a fatality will eventually happen. And logically, it’s preferable to the alternative of many fatalities happening.

Wouldn’t you want to skip Nintendo games so that they stop being culturally relevant? I often hear that piracy is good for media creators in the long run.

This is the message we were replying to

But you realise you could swap the Nintendo games with child slave chocolate and this discussion would have played out just the same. What makes one boycott more likely to succeed than another? That’s setting aside the fact that you’re assuming everybody will have the same set of social values as you.

Because it was very much on camera. Rtfa

How does not playing a game drain more valuable mental energy than downloading, installing, and playing it?

Article could be better written. The govt site is clear it’s about new items.

The govt site does not say anything about single items, only the generic term ‘goods’ is used

I see what you’re saying, but this is one of those things that the news article author (not the law) probably didn’t notice because it just seems like such common knowledge. Used items are considered personal use items and would never be considered for taxing, only new items would be taxable.

Unless, of course, you’re carrying 30k worth of pokemon cards.

That seems fairly standard with most countries having something similar. From the SG govt website,

If you are a bona fide traveller (excluding holders of work permits, employment passes, student passes, dependent passes or long-term passes), you will be given GST relief on new articles, souvenirs, gifts and food preparations that you bring into Singapore which are for your personal use. The relief does not apply to intoxicating liquor and tobacco, as well as goods imported for commercial purposes.

I’m guessing this guy fell afoul of the ‘commercial purposes’ clause.

paying a 9% tax for every single item you posses beyond $500 in value every time you cross the border is just absurd.

It would be if that were the case. What makes you think it is?

Check the comm

It’s also a lot easier to see an entire freeway full of stopped and slowly moving vehicles, as opposed to a single immobile one in the middle of an otherwise empty highway. There’s a reason we have laws against it.

Not stopping, fully stopped. In the middle of a highway. While they should have been observant for dangerous situations, she was the one who created the situation in the first place. Them being at fault does not preclude her from being at fault as well.

international audience

I’m an Asian, you’re preaching to the choir. Or what, did you assume I was American? Tsk, that American exceptionalism.

OP should have included the country in the title, since that was relevant info. Beyond that though, the comment is clearly linked to the article. You’re the only one present who can’t seem to read the context.

It’s a comment on an article about American politics, specifically referring to the issues mentioned in the article. Context is a thing.

You realise the comment you’re replying to was targeted at Americans, yes?