I can't tell if this was a legitimate question or a troll.

If we don't need the coal and only need limited oil for consumer goods (and to not burn for energy) then we simply leave it in the ground.

The tech exists for a full transition from burning fossil fuels. Once we stop believing the ultra wealthy are here to help, we can press down that road to conversion.

What does your Trump Dick Sucking have to do with him being a fraud?

You know, I don't know if it's true or not, but people are saying that Trump cheated on school, lied about his health to dodge military service, and had sex with children. But I don't know if that's true, is just what people are talking about.

It's funny to make fun of Trump and his exaggerations when his great plans fail spectacularly.

If he were to just do things without boasting how great he believes he is or how his idea is the best in history... then when something goes wrong it's much harder to point and laugh.

Or you can look at the optimistic side and it gave this guy a chance to do something other than sulk about his condition.

I had a cousin who had a physical disability that limited the jobs he could do. He also did not have any secondary education so that was obviously a limiting factor as well. He could have gone on permanent disability and just collected gov't checks but he wanted to work and contribute and earn money.

I'm not trying to infer that working gives meaning to life but work does help stimulate and provide social networks for people.

As long as Google makes the default result an AI summary, even with a disclaimer I think they should be held liable.

I never opted in to AI results. It's something they are forcing by default. It's also located at the top of the page, so they are forcing it to be the first thing read.

Out of curiousity, I asked google if they are responsible for false ai results.

Recent legal rulings suggest yes, Google is legally responsible for false or defamatory claims made by its generative AI features.Historically, search engines were treated as neutral intermediaries that merely pointed to third-party websites.

However, courts are shifting their stance when it comes to AI.Key legal and industry developments regarding AI liability:

The "Googleâ(TM)s Own Words" Precedent: A regional court in Germany ruled that AI Overviews are not simply traditional search results. Because the AI synthesizes and re-structures information in its own voice, the court found that the resulting statements belong to Google.

Rejection of the "Verify Yourself" Defense: Google has frequently argued that users understand AI requires fact-checking and that source links are provided for verification. Courts have rejected this defense, stating that the ability of a user to double-check information does not absolve the company of liability for making false claims.

Loss of Safe Harbors: Traditional legal "safe harbors" that protect search engines from hosting third-party illegal content do not apply to AI-generated text, opening up avenues for defamation lawsuits.

Because studies show that the vast scale of AI results leads to millions of erroneous answers annually, experts heavily recommend independently cross-checking AI search summaries against original sources.If you are dealing with false information generated about your own business or person, I can provide information on:

How to use Google's designated feedback tools to report specific errors.

The steps involved in submitting a cease-and-desist or legal removal request.

Would you like information on how to dispute an incorrect result directly with the platform?

It wasn't until after all this that the disclaimer was listed.

I cannot say what the current climate is but 20-30 years ago it was absolutely true that foreign companies had to partner with a domestic company in order to set up operations in China in key segments. This led to quite a bit of IP theft and imitation products on the market.

Now, Chinese companies no longer lag behind global competition and don't need that protection. Now the US is doing what China did back in 90s, creating unfair domestic rules to protect domestic production.

I always cringe at these announcements from the current administration. And then I cringe at China's scripted response, pretending they operate a free market and welcome competition.

My son still had to wait for the bus in the dark in the winter, just depends on if you live on the eastern or western part of the time zone.

I'd prefer permanent daylight savings because I'd rather have that extra hour of light in the evening.. but simply want the madness to end.

Monarchs are mostly ceremonial these days.. he rules like someone who illegally seized power and wants to ensure he stays.

As an American - I don't think our laws apply all over the world.

However, if I had mod points I probably would have modded you down for being a pretentious prick.

Would be a shame if a few of those cameras were used for target practice.

What has set Honda apart from other OEMs in the past was quality(most obvious) and functionality. Honda design is typically more well thought out than a GM or Ford or Nissan vehicle. You get in the driver's seat and it immediately feels more intuitive to control. Honda definitely got away from some of the bare bones entry level vehicles that helped get them to where they are now... a segment the Chinese manufactures are easily exploiting.

Honda was not able to match the cost and still ensure expected features and reliability remained up to par. There was a bet the solid state batteries were just a couple years away and that would have allowed them to catch up. Manufacturing at scale was not working out as expected.

I really wish Honda had kept the EV program going even if scaled back. I was going to get a 0 SUV. It's a market segment that will continue to grow, even if at a much slower rate... abandoning it is like GM/Ford giving up on sedans.

I didn't live in a big county but we still had to pay extra to call neighboring towns. I dated a girl my sophomore year in high school (before I could drive) and she lived in a neighboring town. It didn't last long because we couldn't communicate much.

It will likely just be an option

Why would any competent person agree to work for Trump's White House? Seems like a career-limiting move to me. Money.

It doesn't matter if it significantly limits future career options.. they are making bank on insider trading and there's always a future continuing to take money from the MAGA legion in the way of books, appearances, swag.