So they fold corporation on paper, walk away from the loan and open up a new corporation that gets to use the facility.

Dude it's 2025, by now you should know how this game is played.

1. That's why I gave two sources, dummy.The second source is a detailed dataset and says in the FAQ: "Around 68% of UK households have access to off-street parking."

2. Who mentioned AI? i didn't. I said "rando YT". The notion that your paltry 24 hours in the UK plus watching some YT videos gives you insight into what off-street parking is like in the UK is completely absurd. You cannot seriously think this gives you any kind of meaningful insight. You might aw well pick out Templewood Avenue on Streetview and declare that every house in the UK has off-street parking, or Mabfield Road in Fallowfield and declare none does. I've lived here all my life, and I wouldn't presume ot guess what percentage of cars are parked off-street on the basis of what I've seen with my eyes, because there's 30m+ cars in the UK and 800,000 streets!

3. Once again, you fail at basic reading comprehension. "Will be able to" does not mean the same as "Will". It means "have the possibility". I say this because modern houses have electricity and houses with off-street parking have... off-street parking, and those are the only two pieces of infrastructure required for a household to able to provide home charging. You keep trying to make out this is really hard and really complicated, and it's not. 70% of cars are parked at houses with off-street parking. The owners of those houses could, if they choose, put in a home charger, and then those cars could be charged at home. It will cost the owners about £1000 and ... that's all there is to it. I'm not claiming that all households will do this, I'm saying it's not physically impossible for them to do it, whereas it is physically impossible to put in off-street charging at a house that doesn't have off-street parking (or doesn't have electricity, but that's basically zero houses).

Oh look! You're exactly the coward I said you were. Too much of a pathetic wimp to stand behind what you say and back it up.

The reason I can say "you people" with confidence, is because you're so utterly fucking predictable that you can indeed be grouped together, because you all do the same things and behave in the same stupid way. Thick as pig shit and weak to boot.

I forget which town but one of them immediately removed all the cameras when somebody did a foi request.

You're not going to find out where the billionaires are going because like Steve Jobs used to do they hide their license plates.

But your shitty little Republican mayor who frequents the local gay bar doesn't have the resources to do that. A

Businesses only need to hide it if they are the data controller or the data processor engaged in confidence. YOUR PUBLIC PROFILE IS NOT THIS. *YOU* chose not to hide it. It is clearly mentioned that your profile is available and shared with others. It's your choice not to include a photo or your name in it.

Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. It is published, by you. When you setup WhatsApp you're explicitly told it'll be available for other's to see. You've explicitly authorised people to view it.

Your name is considered personal information when you enter an agreement to share it in confidence. That's not what happens in public profiles. In other news Phonebooks used to exist, vast databases printed out and delivered to everyone in the city containing the PII of everyone else.

There will always be a few crazies, but the reality is the overwhelming supermajority of details in the phonebook were 100% accurate and available.

The number isn't Gemini users, it's AI Overviews. They are *ONLY* counting the search.

So we have had multiple decades of Court packing so you're headed by the heritage foundation, a right-wing think tank that made that their primary goal.

If you look into Amazon for example and wonder how they got so big you will find that they were just going around buying up all there competitors using investment capital. Most tech companies that's how they got big they just bought up competitors.

Facebook is in a unique situation. Nobody under the age of 18 wants to be on the same social media platform has their parents so every few years a new social media platform develops as a separate platform for the kids.

Every time that happens Facebook just buys that platform.

Tick tock was a problem because they couldn't just buy the platform since it was owned by the Chinese government. So they just pressured the government here to shut it all down and give them control.

Refusing to enforce antitrust law makes your life noticeably worse even if you don't use the services involved.

The problem is it's government regulation and its bureaucrats that enforce the law there.

We have been taught our whole lives that there is nothing worse than the bureaucrat. It doesn't help that as an American most of your interactions with the government are negative. Means testing for assistance programs is brutal and difficult so if you fall on hard times and need help fuck you. Most of us did never do need help still have to go to the DMV sometimes and wait in line frustratingly or we get pulled over by cops and that's our interaction with the government.

It is very easy to translate those frustrated emotions with a sabotaged government into a desired cut regulations that control corporate abuses that hurt you.

And that is way too complicated a concept for probably 80% of the population to understand...

Great response, my guy. Substance-free and yet another use of a term you don’t understand. I *dare* you to explain how you’re right, and provide some detail on what you think dumping is, and why. I’ll bet you’re far too much of a coward to try, though. People like you always are.

Oh Jesus fuck. Dumping is an *economic trade term*. It is litigated on by all the countries who participate in the World Trade Organisation. It’s in country’s law books with definitions. I linked to the UK definition above. I am reflecting the standard definition of the term, not your little projecting wank-fest, you complete buffoon.

And once again, you do not understand the words you use: neither dumping, nor cultist.

If you think that the term dumping means something else when applied to economic trade, provide a link to a convincing, credible source. You know, the way I did up above, by linking to the UK government’s legislation on the topic.

You people are so lost in your insufferable stupidity. You just want to redefine all terms to allow you to whine. It’s pathetic.

There is a discussion about that underway. No doubt the OP will turn around and spin that into yet another EU being anti-American tech company rant.

"Can't afford" and "CBF" are two different things. You spend your money on the MIC, we'll spend it on our people. There's a reason why we're rated the top in happiness among the west and the USA further down the bottom.

No it's far from the most expensive option. But yes it's not always the cheapest, but that's completely beside the point, TFA postulates a scenario where the cancellations have disappeared. They objectively haven't. They are right there and you're not even denying that fundamental point I was making.

I was in Chicago only 5 months ago I didn't pay a cent extra for 3 day cancellation. The Hilton I stayed at 2 weeks later (the Marriott was sold out) had 24h cancellation, no extra charge.