This way the headline sounds SCARY!

It is technically a recall by the NHTSA definition, even if the fix is just an OTA software update.

AeroPress is awesome. I have used one at a friends place. My french press is big enough to make 2 full mugs of coffee, which fits my morning routine.

To be clear: As a business owner in a state with at-will employment, I would absolutely terminate an employee who spoke out publicly against the interests of my company. If their beliefs are counter to the company's needs, there is no longer a good match.

Do not threaten. Do not pressure them to change their views. Do not try to prevent them from exercising their rights. Just part ways. They have the right to feel what they feel, and the right to participate in public discourse. I have the right to not employ people who disagree with what my company does. Don't make it more complicated than that. Don't try to find an excuse to avoid paying them what they are owed.

This depends on your position in the company. An executive is an officer of the company, and is considered to be speaking for the company unless explicitly stated otherwise. A line worker is generally not authorized to speak for the company, and should not be presumed to be doing so unless they explicitly state that they are. Someone in a public-facing role (such as customer service, human resources, legal, or public relations) may be speaking for the company, and should always clarify.

Many employees have non-disparagement clauses in their contracts that -explicitly- ban the employee from speech or action that harms the company's reputation. These clauses may be limited depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances.

There is a place for freeze dried industrial coffee products.

I keep Tasters Choice crystals in my camping gear and in my emergency survival pack. I also have a LifeStraw, a bottle, a metal cup and firestarting supplies. I can turn a puddle into clean water and either mix in coffee crystals and drink it, or make fire and have hot coffee... a luxury in a bad situation.

On a daily basis I prefer to take my time and make coffee in a french press, or espresso for a treat.

One time spending with the one time income was a good thing. The fuckup was spending on programs that needed ongoing spending to maintain -knowing that there would not be enough money to cover them in the upcoming years.

I am in California. We benefited from the spending. But our smart politicians set us up for a budget deficit the following year, because of HOW they spent the money. They created ongoing expenses without ongoing income.

You are correct, sir! I was simply spouting off what I could remember...

No. For the same reason our businesses do not leave the EU over their regulations: The potential income from remaining vastly exceeds the cost of staying and paying.

In California, the government is only allowed to save a certain amount of money in "rainy day funds" per year. It MUST spend any additional funds it acquires beyond this set amount.

A few years back, California had a large budget surplus from the stock market surging and people paying taxes on their capitol gains. The state maxed out its rainy day fund contribution... and then implemented a bunch of new services with the remaining money. The following year, when the state's income was back to normal there was a budget shortfall as they could no longer afford those extra services they implemented. People were pissed that the newly implemented services were cancelled.

Everyone saw this coming... but they still did the stupid thing anyway. The laws were written to leave no choice.

If we give them this money, the politicians will use it to dig us a deep hole that we won't be able to afford to get out of.

"The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine."

No one is in a hurry, because it is just money. Financial harm can be made whole by financial means -aka Broadcom can be made to pay ALL of the costs of the harm to those they wronged, if they are found liable. There is no rush in a big business vs big business lawsuit, they are all assumed to be able to withstand the losses for as long as it takes.

The plaintiffs are usually not in a hurry, because they can tally up all of their actual costs (damages) rather than just guesstimating. The defendants are not in a hurry, because they can try to offer a non-precedent setting settlement during the waiting time.

As a consumer, the idea of buying a car without haggling with slimy sales and finance people is enough to make me light headed.

If they can make this work, they have my thanks. IF. They will certainly face severe headwinds from entrenched interests.

No mod points today, so quoting against the "troll" mod bombs.

Parent is "insightful" not "troll".

He needs more humans to spin the cranks on the electric generators to power the AI.

I envision an old school giant spindle being turned by men walking in a circle (ala Conan). Especially favored employees could ride a stationary bicycle-generator.

If (as the summary says) you can get certified by any individual EU country and then "passport around" to operate everywhere in Europe ... why would you not go to a country where you had a deal with the regulator and get your certification rubber stamped? Why go to someone who might say "No."

This is one of those things where the courts give deference to the administration. It is an emergency action. You can litigate it later, but due to the claim of imminent harm the courts will not block the government's action.

Think about when Trump activated the National Guard and ordered them into action in California. The courts ruled against him after the fact, but the courts refused to block the action because the governments claim was imminent harm could occur.

The court MUST give deference to the government in emergencies. Just as you MUST give way for an ambulance with lights and siren going -they get the benefit of the doubt, even if it later turns out they were just sick of sitting in traffic.