For the MAGA dimwits, getting rid of negative value non-white people results in an effective population increase.

A cargo plane can crash a maximum of once and can carry hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of packages. A drone carries one. Furthermore, a cargo plane will move from hub to hub, carrying cargo in each flight. A drone must go in both directions for that one package.

So whilst I technically agree with you, if an aircraft can carry N times as much as a drone, then the drone MUST be 2N times as reliable as an aircraft to be considered equal.

Ooooh, this should be interesting.

Trump, et al, don't consider proof to be all that important, all that matters is publicity, headlines, and transfer of more power to Trump personally.

The courts will likely take a very different view. Unless hard evidence (something Trump has never been able to supply in any court case, either instigated by him or against him), terrorism charges won't survive. But, of course, Trump isn't interested in winning cases like this, he's interested in playing victim and demanding more power.

Or a prepaid retainer agreement with an expiration date for hours and a cap on hours worked per day and per week, waivable only in writing when confirmed by both parties. That way, they can't rush to jam in all the hours with 12-hour days at the end of the year.

True, but conditionally.

Remember the Firestone/Bridgestone tyre scandal, when the company got hauled into Senate hearings because SUVs kept rolling? Remember the Boeing scandal, when their aircraft would plunge out the sky? If a product is operated when known to be defective, your immunity in the case of accidents shrinks.

So it's going to depend on just how safe Amazon drones are. If they're normally safe and reliable, Amazon is safe. If, however, Amazon drones are well-known to lose control under normal and expected conditions, then the picture changes sharply.

As of now, we (the regular plebs) don't know which of those two cases it is. We should not second-guess in either direction, but rather acknowledge that it hinges entirely on what anyone finds out.

Amazon is working on the repairs?

If they can't fly a drone without turning it into a weapon of mass destruction, I'm not entirely convinced I'd feel safe with them a thousand miles of fresh bricks and just-mixed mortar. Always assuming that that's what was delivered. The robots go to a specific coordinate in a warehouse, not a specific product, and there's plenty of bogus stuff sold via Amazon stores.

If I were in that building, I would be very very scared to hear Amazon was repairing it.

His cryptocoin is down 93%. But it was just another way to funnel money into his pockets anyway.

it's currently a currency that is needed to buy oil worldwide

Oil is priced in dollars by convention, but there is no requirement to buy it using dollars outside of what individual countries require for their trade. Oil is regularly traded in other currencies including euros, Indian rupees, Chinese yuan, and Russian rubles, with non-dollar oil trading covering about 20% of the global market. The US dollar is relatively stable, though, so it serves as a useful reference for other currencies, and using it directly to conduct oil trades keeps things simple.

The doubts will last for as long as the depression, during which the wealthy will be buying up bitcoin like mad. Once Bitcoin heads back into the 100k region, everyone will decide it IS digital gold, and push it up higher, at which point the wealthy will sell off, causing a collapse that the "everyone elsers" essentially pay for, and the cycle will continue.

And that is all bitcoin is. It's all the stock market is, too. A tool for pumping money from 401K plans and the gambling poor into the hands of the wealthy.

No, Saleforce degraded their service as soon as they took over. It's been a slow death ever since.

If Salesforce is not extracting a pound of flesh every year from each customer they have, they're not happy.

Sir John Kerr didn't wait for Gough Whitlam's government to ask his advice when he dismissed Kerr and his government. Quite the opposite, the minute Whitlam got a hint that the Governor General might fire him his first thought was to get a hold of the Queen to fire Kerr.

The moment a government in a Westminster parliament loses a confidence vote, they become a caretaker government, a very constitutionally bounded creature. More importantly, their ability to advise the Sovereign/Governor General becomes extremely limited; they can't advise the GG to make new appointments, make most orders in council, or pretty much anything beyond keep basic organs of government going.

In a no confidence situation, it becomes the Governor General's job to figure out what to do next, and the government, being a caretaker, no longer can advise on the use of Royal Prerogatives such as dissolution or appointing new ministers (a new government).

A caretaker PM can certainly tell the GG what he thinks, but as happened in British Columbia in 2017, when the Premier of the province, having lost a confidence motion on the Throne Speech, tried to convince the Lieutenant-Governor to dissolve the legislature and call new elections, the vice-regal representative is under none of the obligations that a premier or PM who enjoys the confidence of Parliament has. In that case, the LG simply rejected the advice, and asked the opposition leader to form a government.

This is why the concept of confidence (and its loss) is far a better moderator of government excesses than the much older notion of impeachment. The latter evolved as Parliament in England gained more authority, but could not directly go after the King, so would often go after the King's ministers and agents through the use of impeachment. But even by the American revolution, impeachment in the Westminster constitutional order had fallen into disuse in preference to confidence. One of the first governments to fall to a loss of confidence was the Ministry of Lord North, after the defeat of the British in the War of Independence.

In general, I don't think someone of Trump's demeanor would ever be able to get away with as much in a Westminster government. Boris Johnson probably pushed the margins as much as any modern Prime Minister in the UK, and in the end he was effectively removed by his own party. It was an even swifter judgment for Liz Truss, who ended up serving the shortest amount of time as PM, beating George Canning, who died in office after 119 days in 1827.

Here in BC we've had multiple Premiers forced to resign. The closest analog to Trump was Bill Vander Zalm, who was accused of a serious conflict of interest over the sale of one his personal properties. He hung on for some time after the allegations became public, and while he ultimately resigned in disgrace, his cabinet was sufficiently worried that he might ignore all pleas to depart that they they hatched a scheme with the Lieutenant-Governor to have the government vote no confidence in itself, which would have forced Vander Zalm to resign, and then the Lieutenant-Governor would ask the designated member of cabinet to form a new government.

In short, in the Westminster system, the Sovereign and his representatives hold certain reserve powers that function as negative powers; almost never used, but the mere fact that they do not accessible by the government of the day creates a ceiling on the constitutional games that can be played. What's more, there are both visible ways to get rid of errant PMs and Premiers (leadership reviews, cabinet revolts, caucus revolts) and much quieter ones (ministers using their access to the King/GG/LG to get around a head of government).

The US put all its eggs in one basket by making a unified singular executive with powers commensurate with a Tudor-era monarch, the Westminster system created a split executive, with an Efficient part that does all the ruling, and a Dignified part that reigns.

The wealthy aren't going to go first, and the sacrifices will be imposed. Oddly enough, the universe doesn't give a fuck how you feel.

He did no such thing, and warned against Brexit, which caused the economic crash.

You do know we can tell when you're lying.