Is one of the reasons I've reduced my cinema excursions to less than once a year. Mostly to remind myself why I don't go the rest of the year.
The ads are not even necessarily for coming attractions!
The other big reason is the foyers full of video screens strobing ads trying to trigger all the epileptics in the crowd while five or six separate audio tracks assure that not one of them is intelligible.
Oh, and the Don't be a thief! propaganda only reminds me how miserly the studios are, and that 95% of the ticket cost is going to them (which is why all the additional advertising).
You know what kind of media doesn't have all that we own this and you're stealing rhetoric?
It starts with a P and ends with a T which stands for trouble and goes Yo ho ho!
You presume that I would intend to make change from within the system.
We will live in our disenfranchised state until the people choose not to. And with bread and circuses, that could last for a while, if only the corporations who own the government wouldn't keep skimping on the bread and overcharging for the circuses.
At the point that we're joking about our lost human rights on the Tonight Show, we can expect that people are feeling it.
An extra-procedural change will happen if a procedural one doesn't soon, and a violent change will happen if a non-violent one doesn't soon.
One of the problems with our system (and with the one-person-one-vote, first past the post system in general) is that it fails to reveal the nuances of how people vote.
~ Most people vote defensively, which is to say their primary intent is to vote against the other guy. It's not a vote for the lesser evil so much as voting for the greater evil. And this is why third-party votes fail: if enough people try to vote in a third party, it tends to be a spoiler for the lesser evil, putting the worst guy into office.
~ Many people buy into the Kenyan Muslim Terrorist rhetoric (or whatever plausible blood-libel, baby-eating, occult-worshipping-incest-cannibalism rumors are going on about the greater evil), which is why negative campaigning works so well. They don't educate themselves regarding the real issues or reasons to vote for / against someone (and maybe couldn't even comprehend if they tried.)
~ There's also people for whom only a single issue matters, and this is the illusion by which we convince people that we're doing something. Some people really hate gays or really hate guns or really hate abortion, and so long as a representative closes a few clinics or runs a few gun-control bills they can cancel all the benefits of their constituency they want and still get those votes.
~ And yes, there's plenty of the red team / blue team crowd, who vote GOP / DNC no matter what because those are their colors, much like sports teams.
But as I said above, we can't change this. People are people are people, not just in the US but worldwide. So the only solution is to system to accommodate the stupidity of the people.
We have to adjust our election systems to accommodate for people being disinterested in their own self interests, or easily distracted, or unable to think for themselves. No this won't be easy, and I don't know what it would look like or if it is even possible (in which case we're just doomed to exist as hateful tribal apes for another thousand generations).
One first step is to change our electoral systems to one of several that aren't first past the post to allow for more than just two parties. That's a first step.
Yeah, I can't find an analysis of the Jeep SUV failure due to collision detection regarding the second one.
The first one is a problem with controls. It sounds like it's not a problem with power acceleration (fly-by-wire) but with a foot pedal getting stuck. That's actually a situation in which a smart automatic driving system could help, especially if the acceleration was control was fly-by-wire as it could then override the stuck control and slow the car down regardless.
The push-button ignition only indicated the system needs to check that the transmission is out of gear before engaging the engine. That's a fixable bug.
The second one sounds avoidable by the guidance system detecting the position of the train and not proceeding onto the tracks if it is too close.
I expect that, because people are ambitious and creative in their idiocy that self-driven cars will sometimes engage in accidents, some fatal. But they don't have to be casualty free, just safer than human-driven cars.
Granted this may create a liability problem, but that's a different issue. There are similar liability problems with public transit.