I know it's only a joke, but this comment highlights something that many folk in power seem to forget.

Houses and their doormats are in a single physical location that has an unambiguous legal jurisdiction. In any given country, if you break into a house you are subject to that country's laws.

Not so with the Internet. It's very difficult to legislate for something like this because other countries' laws can just ignore you, and you have no power over those countries and their laws. So, making things physically secure is far more effective than legislation, especially when it comes to the Internet.

The trouble is, in this market most people would rather complain about their job than complain that they have nothing to eat and can't pay their mortgage.

The article suggests it wasn't the driver's garage. The driver's story seems to be "It was driving itself happily and then went mad and crashed into this random person's garage!".

It's down to the crash investigators to find out whether that's the truth, or the driver crashed it themselves and then just blamed the AP.

In your initial response, you acknowledged that you understood what was meant by "sensors" in the context of the comment, but then the rest of your response was dismissive in tone, and implied that you believe their statement to be incorrect despite your previous acknowledgement. Your follow-up responses are doubling-down on this.

As others have pointed out, arguing about the canonical definition of the word "sensor" is not adding anything to the discussion around the potential cause of the collision.

It might depend on the airline. I used to travel with Ryanair frequently, and special tickets (whatever they were called) were only available for 1/3 of the plane's capacity on a first-come-first-serve basis. Those upgrades got you to choose your seat, skip the queue and guaranteed space for a carry-on bag. All of those things follow a similar pattern: if everyone did it the system would break, which is likely why they picked 1/3 as a cap. It's actually quite clever, although I still dislike the ongoing enshittification of air travel that the budget airlines have caused, despite benefiting from it for a couple of years.

This probably depends on the country, but being married can make some official processes simpler. For example, if a married person dies there are certain things that just default to their official spouse unless otherwise specified in a legal will.

This kinda makes your point about it being a financial arrangement, with a bit of a legal one in there too I guess.

I also think it sometimes makes things easier where kids are involved during official processes.

For technical issues I've come to the conclusion that if there are no other people asking the same question, then I need to re-think my approach, because I'm probably doing something silly.

That's even more infuriating than when you used Google to find a thread where someone asks the exact question you have, and there is only one response and it's someone saying "use Google".

I thought they did have a stop button. I recall a video James May made of a Waymo that had one. I could be wrong. But, the article doesn't say anything about whether one was present and if the occupants tried it.

Edit: I just got home and rewatched the video. No, there's no emergency stop button. There is a "pull over" button on the passenger touchscreen console and the app, but that's about it. A bit concerning!

Public institutions would be better using something like Mastodon for announcements. They'd have the option to retain full control over their instance and citizens wouldn't need an account to access it.