SirEDCaLot

I agree on journalistic integrity. But isn't it important to uphold that standard, even if others don't?

They may deserve it, but it's by knowing those details that we determine if they do or not.

Because otherwise your position basically becomes 'If company did thing x and as a result is bad, it's okay to blame them for thing y and thing z, which they probably had nothing to do with, but we've already determined they are bad and therefore they deserve any blame we throw at them justified or not'.

The problem with that is it sets up witch hunts. You are bad, therefore we can blame you for anything we want, and that blame justifies your being treated as bad.

That is why the Constitution mandates due process. And we should uphold that same standard, in our minds and in our positions and in our debates.

It's a bunch of crap. In fact, modern headphones can if anything help protect your hearing.

The thing that damages your hearing is sound level. Doesn't matter if it's from a speaker to inches away or 20 ft away, what matters is the sound pressure level that arrives at your eardrum.

The problem with headphones is many people turn them up to drown out outside noise. To get it loud enough that you actually can't hear the surrounding noise, it's pretty loud. That is what causes hearing damage, not the fact that it is headphones. It would be no different if you put speakers and turned it up loud enough to drown out the noise.

I say modern headphones can help because a lot of modern headphones have noise canceling. Thus, reducing the ambient noise level means you don't feel a need to turn up the volume as high.

If you don't have good statistics, then you don't include them right next to talking about the prescription drug epidemic sending the impression (If not precisely stating) that your number is directly caused by prescription drugs.

Journalistic integrity is important.

Significantly changed. Even in the last few months. I would encourage you to go do a test drive. Night and day from the type of experience you have.
The driver monitoring now uses a camera. If you are looking at the road, it doesn't ask you to jerk the wheel at all.
Speed control is much more organic and considers turns, hills, etc. The machine vision on the cameras is different as well, it uses a processing technique called occupancy networks to produce 3D data out of the 2D camera images.

The one concern is you list speed in km, the current full self-driving software is not available in all countries and may not be available in yours, which might mean if you do a test drive you are still on the same very basic system you had before.

The core issue, IMHO, is a mixture of lack of critical thinking and intellectual laziness, reinforced by algorithms and echo chambers. You see it in almost any contentious debate these days, including things like politics, but it's pretty much everywhere.

Whatever my opinion is, various algorithms will figure that out and feed me a solid stream of crap that agrees with me because that's what I will click on and engage with. Every time I see an article that reinforces my opinion it gives me a little hit of dopamine that I am right and so I conclude that I am right and everybody smart agrees with me because my position is obviously the right one.
Meanwhile the guy on the other side of the issue has the exact same experience and thus is convinced that he is right and everybody smart agrees with him.

Combine this with an educational system that is teaching the test rather than teaching to think, and the very simple thought process of 'what if I'm wrong? What if I don't have all the details?' simply doesn't occur in an awful lot of people.

Elon Musk is a perfect example. A few years ago, he was a genius eccentric billionaire working to make the planet a better place with green technology and electric cars. Then he joined up with Trump, and suddenly he is a fraudster using Daddy's money to bully his way into companies and taking credit for their success. The rockets are bad, the cars are bad, the tunnels are bad, the brain chip is bad, and all these things always were bad from the beginning because it's easier to retcon than to acknowledge your position changed because of politics.

The fact is, in this age of information there is really no good excuse for ignorance. The information is always out there, if you put even a little effort into finding it. Yes it requires waiting through a lot of crap and slop, But it's out there. And as you say you can just head down to your local dealer and ask for a test drive, and then you have real empirical data to base an argument on. Not that anyone would do that, because to them, their opinion is just as valid as my first hand experience.

Consider the difference between supervision and intervention.
All production Teslas need human supervision, this is enforced with driver monitoring systems as a safety procedure. But the current versions of FSD, released in the last few months, can often navigate through most or all driving situations without human intervention. So the computer will make sure you are paying attention, but will in most cases execute the drive perfectly without making mistakes that require the human to take over.

There's plenty of videos on YouTube check some of them out :)

Okay so you're really telling me that the inner city addict who steals his brother's watch and pawns it for drug money, back in 1992, that was all because he used to be functioning member of society but then got a prescription? Come on man. Heroin has been around a lot longer than any sort of Perdue malfeasance, as have the criminals supplying it to junkies.

I will perhaps give you that it's possible a large number of new heroin users started with prescription pills, for some period during the height of the crisis. But it is beyond ridiculous to ascribe every opioid death to Purdue.

And as for combining drugs, yes that is the risk you take when you buy illicit substances off the street. That is a thing that has been going on long before Purdue, continues today, and will continue into the future even after they rebrand or reorganize or whatever they call it. None of that has anything to do with Purdue.

My point is, the US of course has a drug problem and lots of people die from it. But if you are going to talk about the harm a company creates, you should focus on the deaths actually related to that harm, not out of a broad general category.

For example, if you say 'People need to slow down in work zones! 500 highway workers died on the job last year!' But if the reality is only 100 of those died from being hit by vehicles, the other 400 died from equipment malfunction, chemical exposure, and bad workplace safety practices, your statistic is irrelevant and disingenuous, just like this article.

There is absolutely a problem.
The problem is not fraud by the applicants.
The problem is that we allow corporations to pay so fucking little that you can be full-time employed and still need food stamps to feed your kid.

The problem is that rent is up, groceries are up, everything is more expensive, the cost of living is through the roof and a full-time minimum wage income in most places won't even support a single person on a starvation diet.
Making 47 million people fill out another stupid form will not fix this.

First, did anybody notice that the hundreds of thousands of deaths attributed to the opioid epidemic included heroin? Seems like shitty reporting to me.

There's two sides of this. What Purdue did is truly awful and they deserve to be punished.
The other half of it, is that oxycontin works. I know somebody who has chronic pain due to a car accident, they have tons of metal in their body and the surgery never healed quite right. The result is they are never, ever, pain-free. On a good day they are at 3/10, bad day 8/10 on the 0 to 10 pain scale.
Oxycontin was one of the few drugs that brought them anywhere close to being pain-free. On oxycontin their pain was actually managed to the point that it didn't impact their everyday life. For my friend, oxycontin was truly a wonderful life restoring drug.

In fighting the opioid epidemic, my friend was a bystander casualty. In the fight to stop opioid abuse, prescribing oxycontin even for people who genuinely benefit from it became a regulatory and insurance minefield. It's like in the effort to stop abuse, the entire world forgot that some people actually need the stuff. Prescribing it became a problem for my friends pain doctor, as the amount of pushback from government and insurance for every prescription became totally untenable.
My friend now takes multiple short acting pain pills a day, and gets significantly less relief and lower quality of life despite being on a very similar daily morphine equivalent dosage.

So for whoever reads this, please don't forget that while there are awful people at drug companies and insurance companies and the like, and pushing prescriptions of unneeded addictive medications should result in a lot of jail time, there are patients involved in this fight. Patients who can benefit from this drug, and whose needs are being totally forgotten.

Absolutely. Moral rights? Rights of respect? This is taking a giant leap down a very slippery slope. I am sure whoever came up with this had their heart in the right place. Doesn't mean this doesn't lead somewhere awful.

Curious when this was? And did it have FSD?

Every time my car gets an update and FSD gets better. Every time I get in my car and hit the FSD button.

Serious question- have you ever driven a Tesla? And if so for how long?