Exactly. The car in front might be reacting to some road hazard that just appeared that is not visible from behind it or it may have some mechanical failure. It doesn't matter why it comes to a stop, it is always and all times the responsibility of the trailing car to maintain enough distance to be able to come to a complete stop given the speed and road conditions.
If a human driver had been driving, they also could have fled the scene, like the other human driver who caused the whole problem in the first place, and left the woman laying on the road in the dark, you know, just waiting for the next human driver to drive over her. Lets not forget that the woman was crossing the intersection on red, violating the laws that are meant to keep her safe, which again is something that the robots tend not to do. Basically, what we have here is two humans fucking up and yet we blame the robot for doing the best it could given the circumstances.
Same thing. The idea is go without a lot of the comforts we are accustomed to in order to experience life as those less fortunate do so that we may be more empathetic towards our fellow humans.
> People keep talking about how 'this is a solvency crisis because if SVB had to sell everything today, they wouldn't cover liabilities' when that is the definition of a liquidity crisis.
I don't think that's right. It would be a liquidity crisis if the market value of everything they own is higher than their liabilities but they can't find a buyer at this time. You are saying that a liquidity crisis is when they can find a buyer but everything they have is worth less than their liabilities. That's not the case.
And by not at least naming one of the problems, the author is being cowardly and/or lazy. It's like describing a reviewed item as "good". It conveys no information other than "I like it". The word "problematic" does the same thing here. It signals that the author doesn't like something but doesn't tell us anything about why. In other words, it's fucking useless.
It's not just a "commonly taught idea that businesses should focus solely on generating profit", it's the fundamental principle upon which economies are built today almost anywhere in the world. Sure, there are other ways of organizing economic systems, but to suggest that we are simply or easily going to switch to one is unrealistic. Imagining and wanting a different status quo will not lead to a different status quo, especially if all we are doing is making demands on others to change their behavior and use their property in ways that we want. In other words, if we want a different status quo, we won't get it by bitching about GitHub but by building a competitor company that does things the way we want it.
> It's not just a "commonly taught idea that businesses should focus solely on generating profit", it's the fundamental principle upon which economies are built today almost anywhere in the world.
It's hardly the fundamental principle. The fundamental principle is that people need things to survive and its more efficient if people specialize and trade than if everyone creates everything they need.
The pervase idea that businesses should focus solely on generating profit is also directly responsible for lots of problems almost anywhere in the world from driving out less vicious competitors to rent seeking to externalizing costs to everyone else e.g. via pollution.
I think you're actually both right, in different ways.
Fairly self-evidently, the sane fundamental principle for a business is "make a good/provide a service, and if you do so well, you make a good profit".
Unfortunately, for the past few decades, businesses in the Western world (and particularly the US) have increasingly been operating based on a fundamental principle of "make as much money as you possibly can, and if you have to make a good/provide a service to do so, that's a necessary evil".
You are right about the benefits GitHub provides to the FOSS community but I don't think that was ever the stated goal of this company. Their goal is to make profit, not foster FOSS, so we shouldn't be surprised when they make decisions that benefit their bottom line.
