I fully understand what they are going for. And I also think it would be a great idea. The issue I see is, who decides what is "trusted". The US is showing that it takes 1 asshole to get power to completely upend everything. When UK Trump gets elected and decides the only "trusted" news sites are the ones that report nice things about him, how do you stop that? At this point, everything has to consider what happens if a bad actor gets power because we can see how bad it can be.

To prove your age, will have to provide ID. Now they will know everything you post.

Not soon enough, apparently.

"I'm too stupid and impatient to lose all my own money. Maybe this computer can help!"

What an utterly naive interpretation of world history you have. I can assure you, if you'd been a Jew being rounded up for extermination in WW2 you'd have a different opinion. Likewise, if you were Chinese or Korean being subjugated by Imperial Japan, you'd have a different perspective. There is such a thing as a "just war" even though you somehow ignore the concept. It's usually when your opponent starts the war and is hell bent on eradicating you and your way of life.

Alas, you sit there in perfect safety and comfort, passing judgement on those who sacrificed fa more than you can ever imagine so you could impugn their sacrifices.

Banned for who? And who's going to enforce this ban?

You have to remember any treaty (a) must have signatories that agree to follow it and (b) there must be a method of enforcement. If you lack either of these two conditions, the treaty has no effect.

Not sure how you think you could pull that off, but whatever.

Again...exactly how do you plan to accomplish this? It's not like Iran hasn't been firing missiles at our carriers this whole time. Yeah, it's a halfhearted effort by the Iranians, but what exactly do you think would happen to Iran if you managed to even damage one of our carriers, much less sink one? I can describe it thusly: the American gloves would come off. Iran would be plastered into oblivion via conventional bombardment, and there's very little Iran could do to stop it. Sure, we'd take losses, but the Iranian regime would cease to exist in totality. America has had this option available to it since day one. We haven't exercised it. Not because we couldn't do it but because we chose not to. Do not mistake restraint for a lack of capability.

Yeah, this is a load of shit meant to justify hate speech. You can't claim hate speech is OK based on the context. If I say "all white people should die" that is hate speech. It doesn't matter if my family was killed by a white person, it is still hate speech. You example in BC (which I assume is about Barry Neufeld) leaves out a huge amount of the same context you want to talk about. For example, you leave out him associating queer people with child abuse, claiming it was only because he didn't use the proper pronouns.

If that was happening, you might have a case (not a good one, but a case). But you notice what is missing from the article? Reporting that the amount of arrests for threats also went up. The only time they care about threats are when it is by someone they don't like and then they don't care if they are legit or not (see the James Comey prosecution for the "threat" of "86 47"). This is just normalizing threats and hate, not some secret plan to arrest threat makers.

As someone who lives in Ohio, you couldn't be more wrong. While yes, the state is slightly conservative, the GOP has gerrymandered the state to the point they can't lose. While the state votes overall around 57% conservative, the GOP somehow miraculously has a veto proof majority in the state. The concept of democracy has gone out the window here and been replaced with win at all costs.

Quoted from the article. More quotes:

> "Tesla accomplished this by building a tiny two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel, no pedals, and a sub-50 kWh battery pack."
> "That’s a legitimate engineering strategy for a robotaxi fleet vehicle. It’s not a fair comparison to a car you’d actually buy."

So let me get this straight. They sold data they shouldn't have for $20 million. They settled for $12.75 million. So they made a profit of $7.25 million. So what exactly is the incentive for them not to do this again? They don't make as much as they want if they get caught, but they still make money. This is how you encourage companies to do this, not discourage them.

You do not have to pedal most ebikes. Class 2 ebike and class 3 ebikes can be operated by throttle. Built in speed limits are usually easy to bypass.

Yes, it is really problem. On the Golden Gate Bridge it has been a problem for years. E-bikes going down the sidewalks much to fast to respond to pedestrians and so on.

You cannot just put pedals on a Harley and call it a bicycle. There are some so-called ebikes that can go highway speeds.

Often, there is no other place for cyclists to ride. Often, to get to one bike path to another, you have to ride on sidewalks. Often, sidewalks are considered bike paths.
Bicycles have enormous potential to reduce greenhouse gases, and solve many other problems - as has been proved in the Netherlands. But a certain amount of urban planning is needed.