Agreed. The OP's declaration that this is a difficult read pretty much proves the point of the article.

Especially if you were entering university as an English major, it seems like table stakes to have a conceptual understanding that not all English is going to be in simple, modern terms. That is you're going to be reading books from a variety of time periods and cultural origins, you might need to develop an understanding of those sources.

And now you know the entire reason the US is consumed by political chaos.

A rational society would be regulating those corporations to ensure they act in the public best interest at least some of the time. We're seeing the result of what happens when we are 50 years behind on that. And the current administration is generally rolling back regulations all over.

Think of the money at stake and it will become obvious that our current situation isn't mere happenstance. The chaos is a deliberate smoke screen -- perhaps not exactly planned by the current administration, but orchestrated by the oligarchs behind the scenes.

Are all those cars going to keep circling the block at night when nobody is driving?

They’ll do what taxis have always done when not in use — go to a lot or garage in a cheap part of town.

You think taxi companies are paying for enough parking spaces to store most of their fleet at once? A lot of those cars are stored on the street in front of the house of the driver.

Also, the problem of storing something like 10k taxis pales in comparison to storing 100k+ cars. Some large cities have millions of cars. When was the last time you drove to a stadium concert or ball game? It takes hours to get something like 30k cars in and out of those parking lots when everyone is trying to use the same roads at the same time. It's absolute gridlock.

So to implement anything like what you're talking about you'd need a network of garages and lots in the periphery of a large city, and the road infrastructure that can handle 100k cars driving from outside the city to your home all in time to whisk you away on your morning commute.

For that kind of civic planning & engineering complexity you could just build public transportation based on trains, light rail and busses.

For now, their Nashville test cars seem to be stored in a lot that's basically unused otherwise (I'm not even sure what building it belongs to). I drive by it occasionally. It's not the cheapest part of town, but it's probably pretty affordable.

Maybe do some overnight legs to other cities? Need some sleeper cars.

Covid taught us that we don’t really have enough space to park all aircraft: we expect them to “park” in the sky.

I wonder how downtimes will go when one of the inevitable duopoly players has a system downtime.

If this is true then it sounds like the FBI targeted him specifically because they figured his previous crimes made for good leverage.

It seems his mistake was not realizing that he was caught between a rock and a hard place. More colloquially he's in the FO stage after FA.

It doesn't seem like anyone is morally in the right, but it also seems like the defendant here was in a legal grey area to begin with.

I don’t think willingly destroying your former employers property is a grey area. It is pretty cut and dry it is a crime. The feds used this as a wedge to get him out of the TOR game.

I mean, no, the defendant was definitely not in a legal grey area. You might think it's a moral grey area? But he broke into a data center facility and unplugged a bunch of servers, and brought a company down for a month in the process, out of spite. That's a pretty normal crime. He was lucky not to have been prosecuted, and his luck ran out.

I called it a grey area because there were mentions in this thread that the statute of limitations to prosecute those crimes were close to expiring. That means it looked like he could have gotten away with it without major consequences if not for the fact that he was doing enough shady stuff to attract the attention of the FBI.

He was prosecuted within the statute of limitations for the crime, and probably not too far out of the normal bounds between a criminal act and a federal prosecution. Federal prosecutions are relatively rare compared to state prosecutions, federal prosecutors don't take nearly as many "flyers" as states do, and the feds very often wait a long time before pouncing; this is all consistent with their M.O.

In this particular case, I don't disagree that there was probably motivation to the prosecution! They probably did want something from Rockenhaus, and, when they didn't get it straight up, looked for leverage. Unfortunately for Rockenhaus, he had given them a lot of leverage. It looks like it was a lay-up case.

You can call that a moral grey area and I won't disagree, but my point is just, it's not remotely a legal grey area. Rockenhaus' experience of this prosecution is probably no different than that of a typical federal defendant.

What if we didn't stop them because we were also benefitting from their greed?

I don't think anyone is going to argue that it's hard to do that, but I think overstating their efficacy is what we should be worried about.

With the current political climate, I think we are more likely to find the Health Department promoting cigarettes as a healthy way to relax.

I don't blame you for being too frustrated by RFK to look into him, but this isn't quite his brand of stupidity.

He's obsessed with "pollutants" in the broadest possible sense. That's why he crusaded against environmental pollutors for most of his adult life.

He also rejects germ theory in favor of the idea that disease is caused by environmental pollution getting into the body.

That's why he supports a return to (his broken understanding) of "natural" living.

Or at least take protection money for not talking down certain brands.

Values statements are usually somewhere between a wish list and propaganda.

My cynical take is that a company's stated values are exactly the opposite of the behavior you'll find most common in the company.

It makes sense. When leadership speaks topdown in principles, they want some kind of change to happen, so whatever being communicated can be presumed to not be there before.

It's probably more accurate to say they were reductionists -- it's easy to imagine an ideal system if you ignore the complexities of reality.

Which is why they all failed.

I bet it's related to the tendency for narcissism where you believe that you alone have all the right answers.

> But these seem like pretty reasonable arguments? At the very least you should retort with a study that at least tried to control for confounders.

I disagree. The fundamental premise here is that regular exercise has profound health benefits. Tennis is simply one example.

The rebuttals to tennis here ignore the obvious truth -- there are limitless ways to get regular exercise; you just have to have some time and be willing to put some effort in. With very few exceptions there is nobody in the world for whom it's not a realistic goal.

People who simply do not want to can come up with endless excuses to rationalize it.