@Julian K Indeed. And if you want to leave, you will be punished.

@Kobe Wong Right, I didn't say it takes away the "freedom" entirely. Although I am sure, if they become mainstream the car companies will inevitably push for driverless cars, without an option of driving them yourself, because the roads have become to automised by the cars themselves, so one human driver will cause serious hazard on the road. Think from this perspective. But also, what I was telling is that it takes away also the ability to drive, the fun and excitement which comes with actively being able to manipulate the car. It will inevitably take away that, if they continue with the development of the technology.

@Kobe Wong Somehow the car companies convinced the entirety of the globe's population(especially in the western world, let's not overcomplicate with other less advanced nations), that crossing the road wherever you want, which literally everybody did back before the cars, and at the very beginning of the car era, is bad, and it's jaywalking. They made that term up, not the people. the car companies who put the blame of road mortality on the people who walked on those streets without any restrictions for hundreds of years. And there are many more instances of companies putting blame, or changings rules, laws, culture for their liking, and their liking is money they can make, if those little pesky people would do how they like for more profit. And they will get out of their way, to lobby politicians for better regulations, and later full only car roads for self-driving cars, because pedestrians cause trouble and human-driven cars are worse at everything. The car companies will never look at a chart showing that a tram or a train uses 1000% less energy to transport the same amount of people from A to B, and say "well, this is what the people need then!". No no no, of course they will be "hmmm, how can we make people buy our cars instead of using public transport?". And they sure did win in the US, you can absolutely tell. Guess why the cars break so often? The Ford made model T as reliable as possible, but then after initial boom, people stopped buying, because they didn't break and there wasn't enough innovation to radically change anything in the car so people would buy it. Thereby, they made certain car parts last only a certain period, reduces the amount of service years any given car would have, and have every couple year "brand new" releases with.... umm... couple very insignificant changes. Alright, after all my point is that, if people are going to have self-driving cars on masses, the self-driving car becomes a sort of "public-transport", because you don't drive, and it gets you from A to B, but in your "own" car(yeah, you are also most likely going to be leasing it, the same way how you lease a home now, or if you "own", half of the features are going to go for subscriptions, as we saw in recent years with some car features being under pay-wall, even though you physically own it). That is why they are extremely fking stupid.

I understand your point. However, the main difference between an average person and a person who is 'gifted' is the ceiling of intelligence which one might attain. It certainly does not mean that the person with the higher IQ is going to achieve his own potential, although it does mostly relate to faster learning, and higher learning potential. The main reason why people of 'gifted' range are often poor in social circumstances, is that they overthink the potential outcomes is he says one or another thing, and often fails to execute any of those outcomes, and is left alone. Again, using my first point, theoretically, person with higher cognitive abilities, could train and reach much more profound understanding of social structures, and the way to have more power, and be more socially dominant, so to say. Ramboh would most likely say on the lack of those 'gifted' people, of social intelligence is skill issue, and I quite so would agree with this statement. I am speaking from being myself 'gifted', having 132 IQ, but honestly I hate bragging about my intelligence, and I see this only as a tool which I am able to use in ilve, rather then some kind of benchmark to compare myself with others. I can actually give you a good example of having high IQ, but not being as flexible as somebody with lower IQ. My father has an IQ of over 150, which is an astonishing number on paper, is less socially, and problem-solving capable then my mother who has an IQ of 139. Also speaking about averages, I completely agree that being average is a privilege, it puts you in a very good position, where you have access to majority of things, without being too restricted. As you go higher, you are able to comprehend more, and it sometimes backfires, if the negative understandings of one's reality are not kept under 'supervision', sort of speaking. Our human nature is that we will give a lot more attention to negativity, which is most likely arrives from the evolution, to find threats better, but in today's world the majority of the threats are eliminated, thereby we try to find other sorts of 'threats' in other things, and this does infact include those with higher intelligence, but is even more exaggerated. It is as giving an 800 hp muscle car to somebody who just took a driving test in a 50 hp fiat. I hope you find this comment enlightening to yourself, thank you for reading.