The entire point of my post -- nay, the entire point of the jury system in the United States -- is that until a jury is empaneled, the word "reasonable" may as well have no meaning whatsoever. No one is ever going to define that word short of a jury. You may think you know what is reasonable, they may think they have set forth reasonability in the law, but the only judge that's ever going to make an applicable decision on the word is a juror.

The Supreme Court may decide whether a reasonable jury could have come to a certain conclusion (about whether something was reasonable) but the Supreme Court is also not the place to look for this definition.

Good luck in your studies.

Okay, but their job is a net drag on our society, so you haven’t quite convinced me.

Counterproposal: ban influencers

No. The easiest thing to do would be arbitrate against uber. Deploying a fleet of self driving cars would be much, much more complicated.

My take is that we like to hang out on PG's blog and make fun of his avarice. Is there a better place to do this?

If this site had a slogan, I think you just guessed it

Well, that’s a point of view, I guess.

The idea that a healthy person who thinks about sugar becomes anxious seems less than completely hinged. I’m not sure you’re describing a real problem.