Sadly they have not issued them yet. The prosecutor recently requested them and the court has yet to decide.
napoleonsdumbcousin
joined 1 year ago
urning off GPS and LTE ruins 90% of the features in the car.
The main purpose of a car is "driving", which you can do. Unless you cannot start a Tesla without LTE, which would be very stupid.
You can also always strip a car for parts. Teslas are not magically safe from that.
The story of the Tree That Owns Itself is widely known and is almost always presented as fact. Only one person—the anonymous author of "Deeded to Itself"—has ever claimed to have seen Jackson's deed to the tree. Most writers acknowledge that the deed is lost or no longer exists—if in fact it ever did exist. Such a deed would have no legal effect. Under common law, the recipient of a piece of property must have the legal capacity to receive it, and the property must be delivered to—and accepted by—the recipient.[6] Both are impossible for a tree to do, as it isn't a legal person.
[...]
"However defective this title may be in law, the public recognized it."[11] In that spirit, it is the stated position of the Athens-Clarke County Unified Government that the tree, in spite of the law, does indeed own itself.[12] It is the policy of the city of Athens to maintain it as a public street tree.[13]
[...]
Although the story of the Tree That Owns Itself is more legend than history, the tree has become, along with the University Arch and the Double-Barreled Cannon, one of the most recognized and well-loved symbols of Athens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself
In reality, the tree is not protected by law, but by the will of the people. Kind of symbolic if you ask me.
How is a diverse opinion a threat to democracy?
If the opinion is that there should not be a democracy, then that is a threat to democracy.
Excluding a portion of the population from the polls
They are not excluded. They are free to vote for a party that is in line with the constitution.
its almost exclusively a phenomena specific to the left...
I don't even know what to say. In which world are the far-right, fascists and nazis known to value opposing views? Are you serious?
Don't need an additional thing by law. 😑
You still don't need it if you don't spy on your users. Cookie banners are not required. Asking for consent before collecting data that goes beyond the necessary minimum is required.
I read in another article that it is just supposed to be a first test of the feature before the global rollout.
Big chunk of the funding is from the Saudis though - and they have a very vested interest in trashing twitter.
This does not address any of the points above though. The Saudis could have just bought it for half the money and closed the doors.
It’s also entirely possible the truth is somewhere in between - people who knew he couldn’t manage his way out a paper bag working ego boy into buying twitter and ketting the inevitable happen. He’s not exactly hard to manipulate.
Manipulate into doing what? Buying twitter? I think it is very likely that he just attempted market manipulation and failed. Now he is trying to make the best out of the situation and transform Twitter into the company he actually wants. Except he is absolutely incompetent. I don't see where anybody manipulated him into doing anything. Everything that happened seems very much like him.
Just today there was a great comment by @[email protected] on why this does not make any sense.
- When you factor in the incredible damage done to the Tesla share price by the amount of stock he had to liquidate to finance the deal, and the almost billion a year in interest and operating costs the company is pulling out of him, the deal has, altogether, cost Musk about half of his net worth. No amount of petty childishness is worth that.
- He literally went to court to try to get out of the deal. What was his play here? To sue with the intention of failing? For what possible reason?
- If his plan was to kill Twitter, why would he attach his beloved X name to it? Musk has spent his entire life trying to make X happen. It is dearer to him than his own children. Why would he attach that brand to a company he’s intentionally sabotaging?
- If his goal is to kill Twitter, why is it still here? He owns the company outright. He took it private. There’s no board. There’s no shareholders. He doesn’t have a fiduciary responsibility. If he wanted Twitter dead, all he had to do was shut the doors, turn off the lights, and send everyone home.
Anyone who buys into this “He’s trying to kill Twitter” nonsense, please, I am begging you, try to get your head around the fact that Elon Musk is not a smart man. This isn’t some incredible 4D chess play. Twitter isn’t failing because of intentional sabotage; it’s failing because Musk is genuinely trying his best, and his best absolutely sucks. He’s a bad businessman who lucked into a fortune he never deserved.
I'm not sure if it works with YouTube
I can confirm that uBlock Origin blocks Youtube Ads.
The original contract with the company RWE was made in the 1990s and included destroying whole towns for the coal mine, which was planned to be in use until 2038.
What we see now is a compromise between RWE, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia and the federal government to save the remaining towns and close the mine earlier (in 2030). The wind turbines are from 2001 and are nearing the end of their lifecycle.
I was exclusively talking about the EU ban, not about some random US cities' bans (This is a thread about Germany after all). None of your points really apply to the EU ban.
It does not ban the distribution (you can still legally buy leftover stock - my local cinema seems to have a century's worth of supply), just the first-time sale of newly produced non-medical single-use plastic straws.
The "medical exemption" is not on an individual basis, but an exemption for a production line of straws. Everybody can buy the straws afterwards. The EU ban is not cutting a "lifeline" for disabled people.
The links you provided talk about bans by local city councils in the USA, which have their own (apparantly stupid) rules.
view more: next ›
Your comment is only technically correct, so I am gonna add to that:
Alfred Nobel did invent dynamite and was also a believer in mutually assured destruction, BUT: those two facts are not directly connected.
Dynamite in itself was not intended for warfare, but for mining. It was still relatively unstable so not really suited for warfare. (TNT, which came around 1900, solved that problem.)
Nobel did invent smokeless powder for warfare and he transformed Bofors into an arms manufacturing company though.
https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/