Yours isn't the only post that makes this argument. Can we not rely on the extensive catalogue of existing novels intended for young adults, if what's currently being published is truly uninteresting to them?
Did Harry Potter somehow become irrelevant in that time?
My nieces and nephews (all born after the last book came out) love the series. Incidentally they also enjoyed the Narnia series, and the last of those books was published before some of their grandparents were born.
Note that the US has, multiple times, extradited people from the UK in order to try them in the US, for actions done in the UK - simply because they breached US laws and somewhere in the chain there was a US connection.
Not the best example. The UK-US extradition treaty has a "dual criminality" clause, meaning that the extradited individuals also breached UK law.
I refuse to use their "pay us for two decent shows and a bunch of dreck" monthly streaming service.
Really? I find the average quality of Apple's TV shows to be much higher than the average of the other major platforms. I enjoyed "Slow Horses", "Silo", "Mythic Quest", "Severance", and (to some degree) "Foundation".
As with all of the streaming services I tend to subscribe, watch a season or two, and cancel again until something else pops up that I want to watch. But I'd say that if you've never watched any of Apple's shows you're missing out.
The bad stuff could be unevenly distributed, but it's certainly not something I'd want a kid playing in their bedroom with the door closed.
Is Roblox really more of a risk than other online games in that regard? I don't think I'd feel more comfortable letting my (hypothetical) young kids play unsupervised on open Minecraft servers, for example.
Let's hope his sperm has now been removed from the pool.
I'm pretty sure they keep the samples in separate containers. A big pool of sperm sounds unhygienic.
/s
What's so different about the airport security experience in the USA vs. the rest of the world? I've flown fairly extensively and the experience seems about the same everywhere: Put your bags on the belt, go through the body scanner, get patted down if the scanner flags something.
I will say that it seems like the setup where multiple people can unpack their bags at the same time and then push the tray onto the belt seems more common in Europe. That's much appreciated, but as a matter of convenience/efficiency rather than about privacy.
So Labour are banning crypto donations because it will hurt their political opponents.
That's a plausible, if cynical, take on the situation.
On the flipside, who exactly would donate to Reform with crypto but not through a simple bank transfer? I'm trying to imagine a non-shady scenario where a donor wants to give cash to a political party but is unable to do so because crypto isn't an option.
For example, I would argue that no one and no computer should be driving in the bulk of situations we are currently driving in, because cars are a terrible mode of transportation in the cities where most people live.
I don't agree with it, but that's a valid opinion. My response was written in response to the position that many commenters take (though perhaps not you) that self-driving cars need to be infallible before they're allowed on the roads, while ignoring the fallible human drivers that most don't seem to have a problem with.
Liability insurance is required in the US. Uninsured drivers still exist. I'm sure they do in Canada, too. Insurance also behaves the same fundamental way. If you have a history of at-fault claims you'll quickly find yourself uninsurable.
3 gender benders within 10 years and you are uninsurable.
I don't know if that's an official policy, but I imagine if the anti-woke wing of the current government has their way it might become the case
Having an individual to sue or put in prison doesn't change the fact that you've been injured/killed. The question is what we need to do to prevent pedestrians being run over by a reversing vehicle. Punishment after the fact is a separate matter.
Even setting that aside, it's not clear to me that you'd be better off trying to recover some sort of compensation from an individual with an unknown level of insurance than from the deep pockets of Waymo.
This suggestion solves the problem, at the tradeoff of costing 10-100x more. Parking decks (let alone underground parking) are massively expensive compared to a surface lot. And that's before installing a stacking robot.
I think the simplest solution is for Waymo to find a way to safely disable their reverse beeps in depots. Failing that, make every charging stall a pull-through so there's no need to reverse.
Unless there's CCTV watching every charging point how would they prove it?
You're questioning whether you'd be captured on some sort of camera in a depot full of self-driving cars? The things are sensor platforms on wheels.
Should this requirement apply to autonomous vehicles equipped with sensors that would prevent it from hitting a pedestrian when reversing?
Until they are infallible, yes.
Should we then apply the same logic to very fallible human drivers?
Trying to convert that would introduce new mistakes, you'd likely lose data, etc.
But surely the accountants will be totally understanding when the developers (probably from a consulting firm, or at best another department) will inform them that the mistakes are because the specification they were provided wasn't sufficiently clear! All that's needed to clear them up is a costly change order.
Invest in physics -- own a piece of Dirac!
