Traffic congestion doesn't happen because of lack of coordination. Coordination prevents collisions. Our success rate could be a lot better but the system does pretty well with coordination limited to blinking lights, a noise that says "fuck off", the mutual knowledge that we all got the same training and the private knowledge that everyone else on the road is a suicidal idiot who slept through the training.

Congestion is a physical property of the road network. There's a physical limit to the number of cars you can push through a road in a given time period. Drive the cars too fast and they fly off the road when it bends, or cars slam into each other when a deer tries to commit suicide.

Traffic is well modeled as an incompressible slightly non-newtownian fluid, like runny oobleck. If you apply more pressure/increase vehicle volume the fluid starts to bind up as it becomes harder for the cars to maneuver without collision, regardless of coordination.

You reduce traffic by taking cars off the road, or scheduling utilization. Self driving cars won't help, and we can do both of those without them. Long term they're likely to make collisions worse because humans don't know what they're going to do, so the primary mode we have of coordination, "the theory of mind" will break down. Right now they're so uncommon that you assume any car is a human who reacts and prioritizes like you.

Tear down the freeways and replace them with trains.

True, but that's not just humans. We just drink less poop water so we're behind on the immunity.

Yup, that's thought to be one of the main reasons we domesticated dogs. They could keep up, so they earned their keep, and because we anthropomorphize everything it was obviously only fair we share with them.

And the person you replied to never said what they said was racist, just that they were mouthing off like a racist piece of shit.

Of course, we all know that they were calling them a racist piece of shit. Kind of like how we all know the other poster was being a racist piece of shit because they were saying the same racist shit about Detroit that racist shit bags always say about Detroit.

You don't have to try to cover for obvious racist dog whistles.

What, to you, constitutes "shitty"? I'm seeing people giving feedback on their question. The person you specifically responded to and called shitty and self centered just told OP their motivations were childish and their father was pretty reasonable in his request, given the circumstances.

So no, not as shitty as you want just because they asked, but "not being an echo chamber" isn't shitty.

So yes, I have the gall.

Almost certainly.

They don't have to, since it's not a part of the system that it requires them to hold onto the information, but they all invariably hold onto the information to keep training on it, which includes your personal information.

They are likely not using for selling to other people or anything since that's not their business model at the moment, but it's probably finding it's way into the next version in some capacity.

I mean, they literally asked how people felt about skipping their father's funeral for the given reasons.
If their reasons are childish and disrespectful you can't really get mad at people for sharing that.

Sure. But also: planning a funeral and communicating your funeral wishes is also for the living, which the father is. and respecting the deceased by honoring their wishes is also for the living, since it's how we help solidify the norm that we respect people's final wishes.

Demanding they do it your way is shitty and self centered.

Yeah, how dare that fucking asshole ask his son to attend his funeral just because he cares about "family" or something. It's like he doesn't understand that his sisters might ask some slightly uncomfortable questions or gossip!

You're right that funerals are for the living. They're a place for the living to grieve, mourn and honor the deceased. Acting like it's shitty or self centered for someone to express an opinion about their funeral or what's important to them is honestly disgusting.
The man isn't asking his son to deal with someone who traumatized him, or violated him in some way: he just doesn't like the aunts. That's like refusing to attend the funeral because you just really hate waking up early if you don't have to.

Also interesting is that it's one of the small number of unquestionably public domain pieces of software. Not open source, but public domain. It's not entirely clear if you can technically put your own work in the public domain, or if you're just freely licensing it to anyone.

Sqlite was initially developed for the US military though, which explicitly makes it public domain.

It doesn't matter, but it's interesting.

You are correct that I was not describing capitalism.
I was participating in the silly by creeping closer to full communism and still saying it's something else.

And I'm not sure why Benny would only get half and 2/3s respectively. They owned the truck, so they're the one that did the moving. The others are just employees.

Honestly it's both. Plenty of people with disabilities have plenty to offer. A lot actually don't though, and they still deserve that helping hand.
A family aquatintance has some mental and physical disabilities. They're just not going to be able to help in any way that isn't superficial. And that's okay. Their worth isn't defined by their utility.

Attaching how worthwhile it is to help someone to their ability to provide a service inherently says the person who can't isn't worthy of help.

We should be good to people because it's the right thing to do, not out of the expectation of a future repayment. More pragmatically, we should help based on the assumption that the other person would, and that if everyone acted like that the world would be better.

I think the other person read a bit much into it, but their base point isn't wrong.

But see, it's not fair if people just get what they need! You need to make sure people are paying for it!

We can make it part of the system that each person gets help according to their needs, but each person also gives help according to their abilities. Yes yes. This is now definitely capitalism because it's transactions.