You should probably know that strangling someone is a strong indicator of a future murder attempt. Far more than other forms of battery.

You definitely need to consider your own safety, and those around you

Sometimes. It was also frequently not connected to anything.

Often there are contracts. Sometimes for a very long time, often multi-year. There are sometimes escape clauses (like a morality clause for a spokesperson), but these aren’t easy to invoke.

I suspect many of them are up for annual review/renewal, when they can be terminated without penalty. It might also just be an attempt to get better terms.

Uber’s insurance is pretty bad. Many get the additional coverage from their regular insurer anyway because of this. That coverage also (usually) applies to this situation as well.

Ain’t no one approaching the T-800 to steal your wallet or anything. Curiosity, sure. But you don’t look at that and think “easy target”

Now, if I’ve done something specific to be a target, I’m not sure it would be an effective bodyguard.

“handle” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The signs are already there that all of these edge cases will just be programmed as “safely pull over and stop until conditions change or a human takes control”. Which isn’t a small task in itself, but it’s a lot easier than figuring out to continue (e.g.) on ice.

I’m pretty sure they mean the Russian Reversal jokes, usually attributed to Yakov Smirnoff https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Soviet_Russia

There’s a problem with your premise. NATO (much like the UN) is not a military force of its own. Rather, it’s an agreement between many nations, each with their own militaries. There is no NATO army. There is an agreement of the United States (with its army), the UK (with its army). Germany (with its army), etc.

Each of them could independently invade. They could even negotiate an agreement to invade. But that would have limited impact on NATO. The big thing would be that any invading country loses the agreed upon defenses of the rest.

Will this help users on Bing with their number 1 desired search destination, Google?

Or their 7th most common destination, Bing?

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/1/22703263/google-lawyer-argues-bing-used-find-google-top-search-defaults

Not necessarily. They could split the video in advance, assuming the ads will always be at the same point. Even if not, they could still use the direct, unaltered source with a range. The big challenge would be keeping it all synced, which I think is safe to say that they will get right.

But even if it did need to be transcoded, YouTube automatically transcodes every single video uploaded, multiple times. They are clearly not afraid of it.

I said nothing of the sort, and have no idea where you got that idea. All I said was that marketing claims are separate from the contract.

However, this thread is clearly not interested in any actual exchange of ideas or information, so I will no longer be taking part. Go ahead and downvote.

1. False advertising has nothing to do with breach of contract. Completely separate sections of law.

2. Nothing offered in perpetuity will stand up in court. You can argue about reasonable terms, but it can never be forever.

3. Marketing gets you into the contract. The contract holds the actual terms that both (or all) parties are bound to.

I would be surprised if this goes anywhere meaningful. Those were marketing promises, not contract terms. I noticed the promotion ended just over 2 years before the price hike, indicating that everyone had completed their contract. Once the contract is over, either side can walk away, or renegotiate terms.

It negates the point of a contract. What kind of contract even has a term of length without a set price?

You bring up a valid point. There are many facets of life and a left/right divide, and some of them did shift left.

But compared to the 50s (which is when many right wingers idolize), particularly starting with Reagan, we’ve seen:

1. Push for theocracy

2. The war on drugs

3. Less “society” and more individualism. This is especially true regarding regulation of harmful activities for profit, such as corporate pollution

4. Reduced enforcement of those laws that we do have, as long as it’s a corporate entity and/or for profit

5. Massive consolidation of all industries. Competition is now mostly an illusion.

6. Strong push against workers’ rights. Reduction in union protections, minimum wage laws, OSHA powers, etc

7. Active, planned takeover of media. This was started by (IIRC) Roger Ailes that if the right controlled the media, Nixon would not have been impeached. He went on to found Fox News with that philosophy, and proved it correct with Trump. See also: Sinclair

8. While this mostly happened at a state/local level, it has been nationwide. Government was intentionally ruined as an effective organization, and now provides way fewer/worse services

These are just a few ways that the country has shifted right, but they are so impactful to the average person’s daily life.

Their claim is that the country has been ruined by the left, and they want to restore it to its former glory. It requires ignoring the fact that the country has taken a hard right shift since the time they are idealizing.

As for the cognitive dissonance, Stephen Colbert (during The Colbert Report) played around with this self-contradiction. His book is titled “America Again: Re-becoming The Greatness We Never Weren’t”

Edit: autocorrect

The average lifespan of a car is 200k miles, not 300k. While it’s not uncommon to see cars going higher than that, it’s rare to see them get to 300k. I’ve had 2 Toyotas that died between 230k and 260k. There are more citations in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_longevity

Given that 300k km is ~186k miles, I think OP made a pretty reasonable comparison.

As for robustness, how do you even define that? Repair costs per year/mile? Frequency of repairs needed? In either case, there’s a much bigger gap between a Jeep and a Toyota than between ICE and BEV.

TC’s video is specifically about North America, particularly the US. Here, we currently have 3 (well, 3.5) connectors. They are Chademo, j1772/CCS, and Tesla.

Chademo is already dead on new cars, and was never very widely adopted. Tesla is of course the connector used on most Teslas. J1772 (Level 1/2 AC) and CCS (Level 3 DC Fast) charging connectors are used on everything else. J1772 is electrically compatible with level 1/2 Tesla, requiring only dumb/passive adapters. CCS and Tesla supercharger is more difficult. This is the standard for almost all new EVs that aren’t Tesla.

BUT, there been a more recent development! The Tesla connector has been standardized as the North American Charging Standard (NACS). Most major manufacturers have already signed on.

Which means aside from a transition period with adapters, the future here is a clear standardization on NACS.

ETA: He also has a later video where he covers why that ends up being a good thing.

The term frequently means narrowly avoiding a bad outcome, regardless of how it happens. Often it’s nothing more than Mr Magoo-ing out of the way.

There are remarkably few people in the world who can actually dodge a literal bullet. Everything else is just luck or escaping.