If you ban SUVs people will drive converted full sized vans and large cab pickup trucks.

My suggestion is not ban SUVs entirely, but require additional permitting heavily discouraging of consumer use. Restrict who can drive them when and where at what speed, and what for purpose. You may need an expensive permit, And take additional training to certify to a higher class large vehicle driver's license, for example.

Full sized vans and large cab pickups for personal use outside licensed work trucks or delivery vehicles etc would carry same restrictions tied to vehicle size and risk levels.

To deal with the affordability crisis. It doesn't work because if you get hit in one of those by an American SUV you might as well have gotten hit on a motorcycle.

That's a reason to ban "American SUVs" not the Kai cars. One of the flaws in the crash safety rating for personal passenger vehicles is we are only considering how well vehicles protect their passengers, and not how much risk vehicles pose to other vehicles in a crash. We should be banning or limiting the speeds and restricting highway use of personal vehicles that are overweight or pose a danger.

They could say no. No-one is stopping them.

You're right. Also a professional baseball player *could* put their bats down and just stand at the plate, but pointing out that it's physically possible is stupid, especially if your argument supporting that "They Can Just Do That" is that baseball players *should put their bats down*.

This is why such people shouldn't be in positions of power.

Again with the should. It's dumb saying "they can do something, but they won't, but they should" because it's a moot point. Yes, they could also write a press release that is an 80 page Star Trek fanfic set in the narrative universe of Mr Rogers. Nothing is stopping them. But what is the value of pointing out something they are physically capable of when even you seem to understand why they won't? It's just a completely meaningless observation, particularly since you couch it in phrasing that suggests it's just a simple easy thing to do? You're trying to have your argument both ways - it makes you sound simple.

This is why such people should never be in positions of power.

What you're trying to do here is deal with the world the way you think it should be, not the way it actually is. So saying, "You can just do this" if the world was the way you think is should isn't a particularly well supported assertion.

It's a lot of work, and Japanese has a lot of characters.

That they probably use a small subset of, And can have a bot scan their game's text assets for all characters presented in a certain font
and build a font with only the ones used in their existing program.

"The whole point of this is because Waymo isn't supposed to make those mistakes,"

There is no whole point in such a complex issue, but I would like to tell this person that the idea is part of the argument for automated vehicles is they may make less mistakes. Perfection shouldn't be a condition for improvement.

I don't think UK qualifies as a Western Democracy anymore.

It's historically a representative democracy, but the representation has been corrupted by outside influence, including political parties,
and has thus fallen to despotism.

Microsoft is not a person. It is a massive company capable of pursuing many mandates, some of which can either appear or can actually be entirely at odds with each other.

for the current year but can be carried over for deductions over five years, so the 40% isn't just lost.

Sure.. There are carryover credits for future taxes, but If your income's about average on years you don't win the lottery - say about $20,000 a year for years you don't win the lottery. Your max deduction is only about 8K a year. The charitable deductions can't bring your tax bill below zero, And In that case you will not have nearly enough tax liability over the next 5 years to offset 90K in lost deductions. It is also possible their regular income is so low they Don't ordinarily owe any income taxes every year, or don't owe much, In which case all the deduction is Lost. You do lose the money, unless you are rich and thus have sufficient Income where you would owe tax to be able to take full advantage of those deductions.

It doesn't exactly make sense.. If it's a hardware CPU feature, then you could embed the instructions in your program.

System firmware's function is to manage BIOS components such as peripheral addons and system boot; firmware does not have control over CPU offloads or what CPU Opcodes or instructions can be found in your program code that the CPU will read from your program's memory during the fetch cycle.

The only way they could cause you troubles is if the CPU vendor has specially added some system register flag to the chip allowing your operating system to disable instructions from system mode. But why should Intel want to be complicit in this scheme?

Most likely it is some dumb shit such as possibly shipping Windows drivers or system tables in the UEFI that hide availability of features.

      Also.. if It's a flagship feature of the CPU, and they advertise their product as having that CPU where Intel markets those features, Then it seems like this should be considered a defect under warranty which cannot be overcome without a prominent Disclosure in the product advertising that major Advertised features of the Advertised CPU are Removed and not included..

transcoding on its DiskStation Manager and BeeStation OS platforms, saying that “support for video codecs is widespread on end devices, such as smartphones, tablets, computers, and smart TVs.”

I would call this a shit move. Essentially the only reason I'd buy a DiskStation over a cheap-o Mybook NAS or one-off USB disks plugged into the router would be for that Transcoding support. Just bc video codec support is widespread does Not mean all your playback devices support it. The whole point of the feature is to provide interoperability, and I won't be buying any NAS hardware that cannot transcode to all modern codecs.

I don't think the US actually enforces anything approaching the spirit of robust anti-trust law now. The goalposts have been moved back so many times, they're on another field now.

The IRS steals your lottery winnings in the US? 40%?

There is a mandatory 28% witholding on lottery winnings above $5,000. You will receive a W-2G form.

You can at least claim expenses against this "income" such as costs of tickets, gambling losses , etc? No? What a scam!

Your ability to claim expenses or gambling losses on a lottery win is restricted heavily. Most likely those deductions will end up being disallowed if you try to claim them without getting a CPA and making sure you document and can follow the IRS rules to a T.

The payor is required to withold the amount regardless. You will need to file an income tax return for that year in order to receive a refund for any portion of the witholding you end up not owing as taxes.

She still has to pay income tax on $150K, given that the tax deduction on donations isn't 100%.

A cash donation to charity is capped at 60% of your AGI for the year the donation is made. So 40% of that donation would be not deductible from federal taxes - let-alone state income taxes.

If you win a $150k lump sum; the Lottery doesn't give you the full amount. There is a federal mandate requiring 25% to be witheld from the payout for taxes, so you'd walk away with $112k MINUS any witholdings required by your local state government as well. Also, MINUS fees.. because if you won the 150k lottery and choose to go for the lump sum instead of the annuity that adds up to 150k over time-- your total amount is going to be less Based on the present amount of those future cash flows minus fees.

In an of itself, that's a perfectly cromulant opinion to hold, but I doubt it's going to be shared by a bunch of people with Robinhood accounts paying electronically for the delivery of "freedfrom from techy surfdom". :D