flamingo_pinyata

Musk is a narcissist who got very lucky in life. But still he is a human, bad human but relatable in the sense you understand his flaws.

Thiel is something else. Sociopath I guess. Dude is not human and doesn't function according to any understandable human psychology

Airbnb. I used to think they were a perfect business. Saw a gap in the market, created a decent product, invested in their users (back in the day they would even send a photographer to take good photos of your property).
Unfortunately the consequences turned out to be awful.

There is so much more to knowing a language than literal translation.
You'll never understand memes using machine translation. Even if AI can do something like "explain why this image is funny", it just doesn't hit the same.

the man who hit the family and never stopped, reportedly admitted drinking "a little" alcohol earlier in the day. He also admitted to being on painkillers and being partially blind in one eye

It's a miracle only one person died

The way I understood it (probably wrong): imagine if a point like thing, but is actually a wave, hits something else. It will leave a trace on the detector curving in a certain direction. This is interpreted as angular momentum aka spin.

Looking up how to do something, as an improved stackoverflow. Especially if it provides sources in the answer.

Boilerplate unit tests. Yes, yes, I know - use parametrized test, but it's often not practical.

Mass refactoring. This is tricky because you need to thoroughly review it, but it saves you annoying typing.

I'm sure there's more, it's far from useless. But you need to know what you want it to do and how to check if done correctly.

Both really. The thought of strange unknown people is scary until you get to know them. But also people going through immense suffering and trauma, fighting for bare survival, can be dangerous and unpredictable.

Why expend all that money and effort just to build it badly. At least paint some shared bus/streetcar lanes.

Image depicts a record breaking speedrun

That's true. My argument is that before, when people had more children, they didn't care about bringing them into a bad world. Even 100 years ago it was expected some of your children will die.

Now, children dying is not a nice thing. Luckily we solved it and these days if you behave like our ancestors you will have too many children for society to be sustainable.

But if you're in a situation where there are too few children for a sustainable society, encouraging risk would help.

All being said, I actually believe we need to reduce the human population. But we don't know how to handle a sudden decline, or if we can level it out later. So a gradual decrease would be preferable.