Pretty fun. Went places that were unexpected!

I think Rich's shtick is that he speaks and behaves slightly awkwardly, offbeat. So i think part of the joke is him inexpertly/unexpectedly using a cattle herding term, the conceit of which is that Rob can decide to buy him some more biscuits or not as he chooses, because it's his money and Rich isn't about to force him. Obviously analysing it doesn't do it much justice.

That's what i think, but i don't actually find Rich funny so i might be missing the joke myself.

Well! That was unexpected!

Unexpected feels. Nice

Yes, but that service was over. She was continuing to sit in his car, but was not going to pay more money for his time she was using. Even if he wasn't at her destination, once he said 'get out', it's over, she's trespassing, service or no. She has every right to complain, but not to remain.

Really? Someone needs mind control to get you irate? I guess we aren't being serious anymore.

If a customer is rude and abusing the service, and refuses a calm request to leave, things are going to escalate. She should be glad they didn't escalate physically, because while that would certainly be wrong of him, it would not be totally unexpected. Her demeanor was designed to provoke....I know it well, it was my mother's MO in any argument. Get you flustered, then poke you in a calm, soothing voice.

I agree, in a perfect world, people never piss other people off to that extent where they completely lose their shit like he did. This is FAR from a perfect world, and some people see it as their reason for existence, and a form of entertainment, to drive people over the edge. Others do it, then turn on their camera to film the results and claim they're the victim. I think that's more than likely the case here.

I've also dealt with people acting worse than he was (we have no idea how bad she was before she started filming his reaction and she started being oddly calm) and not lost it....and I've dealt with people acting as aggravatingly as possible, but calmly, and completely blown a fuse, like when my neighbor calmly climbed over my fence and cut my trees down.

Yes, calling the cops is the right idea, but not necessarily useful. In many places, they would never respond to that call and would tell him so....then what?

I would bet $5 that the video starting 5 minutes earlier WOULD excuse his behavior. I might lose that bet, but it only makes sense to me. He wouldn't be an Uber driver long if he acted that way normally....and he's probably not one now.

Yes, but that service was over. She was continuing to sit in his car, but was not going to pay more money for his time she was using. Even if he wasn't at her destination, once he said 'get out', it's over, she's trespassing, service or no. She has every right to complain, but not to remain.

Really? Someone needs mind control to get you irate? I guess we aren't being serious anymore.

If a customer is rude and abusing the service, and refuses a calm request to leave, things are going to escalate. She should be glad they didn't escalate physically, because while that would certainly be wrong of him, it would not be totally unexpected. Her demeanor was designed to provoke....I know it well, it was my mother's MO in any argument. Get you flustered, then poke you in a calm, soothing voice.

I agree, in a perfect world, people never piss other people off to that extent where they completely lose their shit like he did. This is FAR from a perfect world, and some people see it as their reason for existence, and a form of entertainment, to drive people over the edge. Others do it, then turn on their camera to film the results and claim they're the victim. I think that's more than likely the case here.

I've also dealt with people acting worse than he was (we have no idea how bad she was before she started filming his reaction and she started being oddly calm) and not lost it....and I've dealt with people acting as aggravatingly as possible, but calmly, and completely blown a fuse, like when my neighbor calmly climbed over my fence and cut my trees down.

Yes, calling the cops is the right idea, but not necessarily useful. In many places, they would never respond to that call and would tell him so....then what?

I would bet $5 that the video starting 5 minutes earlier WOULD excuse his behavior. I might lose that bet, but it only makes sense to me. He wouldn't be an Uber driver long if he acted that way normally....and he's probably not one now.

Hilarious. Maybe they should have tried to not giggle like naughty teenagers making a prank call if they want to be taken seriously.
First, they did make the shirt he asked for, a quality one it seemed, just with a bonus secret message.
Second, Trump supporters are the same people who advocate the refusal of service for people who offend their religious (or political) sensibilities, so what's his problem? He was probably hoping they would refuse him service so he could use the video as proof that "liberals" are totally hypocritical and refuse service to those they dislike but vilify "conservatives" for the same thing, but got something unexpected instead.

It's now pretty clear that initially they did this looking for and expecting a negative reaction they could exploit somehow, then pressed the point when they got one, thinking they 'got them' and now he can be the conservative hero of the week.

To be fair though, what response does one expect when one goes into a business in a firmly red state like Alabama or Mississippi, and an even more firmly Republican city, and then go to a world famously Republican neighborhood in that city, enter a store with a Trump sign in the window and ask them to make you a HILLARY T-shirt? I would bet $10 it involves threats of violence if not actual violence and firearms, not a quality shirt with a 'secret' message inside.

All things considered, this is probably the least creative, least unexpected, least interesting way anyone could possibly do a Surprise John Cena. These people need to watch more Japanese prank shows.

According to whom?

They don't normally do that. They decide "well, they wrote X, but clearly the intent was to also cover Y and Z" is how they usually interpret laws. Creating entirely new law based on entirely new circumstances is NOT how they are supposed to work...but I do admit it has happened, just not often.

The Judicial exists for a reason. Interpreting and enforcing laws is what they are here for. Let them do their job and interpret laws so the legislature can (not) do theirs and write new laws to cover new circumstances or re-write old ones to actually SAY what's intended, and remove or redefine parts that have been interpreted in ways that were not intended or that had unexpected consequenses.

EDIT: I would point out that it's judicial interpretation that has given the right to own and bear arms to individual citizens rather than only well regulated militias, the amendment only specifically gives it to "people" not "persons"...which technically means only groups of people are allowed to own them. It was new, recent judicial interpretation based on a challenge to the DC gun ban that granted the right to individuals, no where in the amendment does it spell out that individuals may own and bear arms.

That was most excellent and unexpected...thank you Internet.

@ChaosEngine

I'm not sure you understand what machine learning is. As I said, the trigger for your child.runsInFront() is based on numerical inputs from sensors that is fed into a formula with certain parameters and coefficients. This has been optimized from many hours of driving data but ultimately it's not able to predict novel events as it can only optimize off existing data. There is a base level of error from bias-variance tradeoff to this model that you cannot avoid. It's not simply a matter of logging enough hours of driving. If that base error level is not low enough, then autonomous cars may never be deemed reliable to be unsupervised.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias-variance_tradeoff
Or specifically: http://scott.fortmann-roe.com/docs/docs/BiasVariance/biasvariance.png

It's the same reason that a stock market simulator using the same method (but different inputs) is not accurate. The difference would be that while 55% correct for the stock market may be sufficiently accurate and useful to be profitable, a driving algorithm needs to be near perfect. It's true that a sensor reaction time to someone braking unexpectedly may be much better than a human's and prevent a crash, so yes in certain cases autonomous driving will be safer but because of exceptional cases, but it may never be truly hands-off and you may always need to be ready to intervene, just like how Tesla works today (and why on a regulatory level it passed muster).

The combination of Google hyping its project and poor understanding of math or machine learning is why news reports just parrot Google's reliability numbers. Tesla also, has managed to convince many people that it already offers autonomous driving, but the auto-steer / cruise and changing lanes tech has existed for around a decade. Volvo, Mercedes and Audi all have similar features. There is a tendency to treat this technology as magical or inevitable when there are some unavoidable limitations behind it that may never be surmounted.

Woah, woah, you're way overstating it. The tech is nowhere near ready for full hands-off driving in non-ideal driving scenarios. For basic navigation Google relies on maps and GPS, but the crux of autonomous navigation is machine learning algorithms. Through many hours of data logged driving, the algorithm will associate more and more accurately certain sensor inputs to certain hazards via equation selection and coefficients. The assumption is that at some point the algorithm would be able to accurately and reliably identify and react to pedestrians, pot holes, construction areas, temporary traffic lights police stops among an almost endless litany of possible hazards.

They're nowhere near there though and there's simply no guarantee that it will ever be sufficiently reliable to be truly hands-off. As mentioned, the algorithm is just an equation with certain coefficients. Our brains don't work that way when we drive. An algorithm may never have the necessary complexity or flexibility to capture the possibility of novel and unexpected events in all driving scenarios. The numbers Google quotes on reliability from its test driving are on well mapped, simple to navigate roads like highways with few of these types of challenges but real life is not like that. In practice, the algorithm may be safer than humans for something like 99% of scenarios (which I agree could in itself make driving safer) but those exceptional 1% of scenarios that our brains are uniquely able to process will still require us to be ready to take over.

As for Tesla, all it has is basically auto-cruise, auto-steer and lane changing on request. The first two is just the car keeping in lane based on lane marker input from sensors, and slowing down & speeding up based on the car follow length you give it. The most advanced part of it is the changing lanes if you indicate it to, which will effectively avoid other cars and merge. It doesn't navigate, it's basically just for highways, and even on those it won't make your exit for you (and apparently will sometimes dive into exits you didn't want based on lane marker confusion from what I've read). So basically this is either staged or this guy is an idiot.

I do not mean to be rude, but the reason why you're feeling no empathy is because you assume that drug addiction is a choice that people make, turning away from better and brighter options and choosing the short road to an early death.

It isn't. It's generally a result of inability to deal with life, a job, trauma from their past etc. It is a result of social systems which allow people to sink to the point they need an escape. Look at any mental ward, most of the inmates (if allowed) will smoke. Same with various anon groups, smoking/coffee etc are almost encouraged as an alternate addiction to the one that will put them in a grave far earlier.

Addiction is a crutch, a way of escaping from something else.

The work by Carl Hart on addiction provides a lot of proof that when given social interaction and ways to reintegrate with society, addicts can and do have the fortitude to get off drugs. And that most drug addicts are fully functional, and drugs are a way for them to cope with the stresses or lack of control in their life.

http://www.drcarlhart.com/

To fix a problem, you first have to understand it. That does not require sympathy or empathy. That is basic science and it's based on evidence. That the DEA is freaking out over krokodil is because they don't understand that drug abuse in the US is a factor of the social situation people find themselves in. At least for the classes of people that will use a cheap and dangerous drug (not to put too fine a point on it, predominately black). It would not be unexpected that because of the supposed danger, users found with krokodil may end up with far harsher sentences than heroin users. Soaring African-American incarceration rates again?

Funny how we never see videos like this over oxycodone or cocaine abusers, or housewifes who will pop whatever prescription they can get their hands on. They are no less addicted, but it's a nice, clean, acceptable addiction that allows them to stumble on through life. Is that EIA?

Yeah, Lin at the end was unexpected and ON FIRE!