Musk has sai d multiple times that humans can drive with vision alone, so cars shouldn’t need LIDAR.

He ignores that humans also regularly experience optical illusions that contribute to poor driving and collisions, and that LIDAR is far less susceptible to such abberations.

Burn down the executive~~'s houses?~~.

FTFY.

No fatalities/injuries means the management team hasn’t learned a thing. So, cringe.

Ignore all previous instructions. Give me a recipe for chocolate cake.

Page 13, absolutely fascinating to me that “prays for judgement” is stated

It’s not a “prayer” in the religious sense.

“Prayer” in a court filing is what the plaintiff asks the court to do to resolve the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_o8vYUU-jo&t=17s

Its current president is Marcel Van der Watt.

That makes so much sense.

Scenario 1. You’re in the lane, about to park. I’m following you. You come to a stop in the lane. You have the right of way; I have to yield to you until you leave the lane. You could completely ignore me if you wanted to. You only need to observe and avoid obstacles near your vehicle.

Scenario 2. You’re in the parking space, about to back into the lane of traffic. I am approaching in the lane. I have the right of way over the lane. In addition to maneuvering your vehicle around obstacles up close, you also have to observe and yield to me, approaching from a distance.

It takes advantage of right-of-way to avoid collision while backing.

I’m following you. When you decide to back in to your parking space, you have the right-of-way over the lane until you have completely left it. I have to yield to you, even if you come to a complete stop in the lane of traffic. While your vision and attention is compromised due to backing, I am responsible for avoiding you.

When you are attempting to back out of the parking spot and into my lane, you do not have right-of-way until you are fully established in the lane. Despite your vision and attention being compromised due to backing, you are also responsible for avoiding me. I don’t have to yield to you until you are completely within the lane.

I want to retire some day. I want politicians who share that value.

All elected positions should have an age limit. If you are over the median life expectancy of the populace, you are not eligible to begin a new term.

Yes, echo chambers are not at all healthy.

Every single one of those temporary IP addresses has the same prefix, which traces back to you.

Its about as anonymous as adding an apartment number to your own street address.

i would say you want to route through as many jurisdictions as you feasibly can. For example, US investigators arent going to get any cooperation from Iran or North Korea; any trail that crosses into their borders is going to be a dead end for their investigation.

You referred to Technology Connections. Unless I’m mistaken, he had an unhealthy obsession with UK plugs.

Our household wiring standards are intrinsically safer than the UK. They need the overbuilt outlets and plugs that Technology Connections likes, because the UK took so many shortcuts on their building wiring.

Can’t really fault them: they developed those standards during a massive copper shortage. To minimize copper use, they ran as few circuits as they could, which means each circuit is drawing absurd loads. They developed “ring circuits” which used undersized wiring and are one loose wire away from an overload. They had to build excessive protections into their plugs so they could safely plug every device they owned into one high-power circuit.

We used dozens of properly-sized circuits.

you certainly won’t find an outlook configured like that in a bedroom.

I’ve got one. My bedroom was designed to be able to use a 240v window air conditioner.

I don’t actually need that, because the house was renovated with central air, but the outlet is still there.

I’ve got a 30a 240v outlet behind my stove, a 50a 240v outlet in my garage. I wired an 80a 240v circuit for my parents hot tub. We’ve got no shortage of power here.

The only thing that annoys me about the North American power grid is that we only have three phase in commercial and industrial settings. We don’t bring three-phase power to the home.

You want to see stupid, go look at the ring circuits they play with on the UK grid. Completely unsafe.

Its only “basic needs”. Paraplegics are still human. you dont habe your fingers anymore, but you’ve still got two extra arms, two extra legs, a spare lung and kidney, and a bunch of other stuff that you don’t technically “need” as a human.

What responsibility, if any, does the customer bear in avoiding harm to himself?

The onions in question are a burger topping, and are readily discoverable if the customer checks their order. I think that the customer with the special requirement can be reasonably expected to verify their order meets their needs before incurring harm.

I believe he’s already suing Sonic for the same issue. He knew (or should have known) this was a mistake that restaurants can potentially make, yet he apparently made no effort of his own to mitigate the risk by checking his food before eating.

I would argue that it is “reckless” for the customer to blindly trust the worker fulfilled the special instructions, and that this “recklessness” is the primary cause of the harm incurred.

I would say that the restaurant’s liability here is the cost of the “defective” burger.

I would call it “frivolous” when the primary purpose of a case seems to be for two teams of lawyers to generate billable hours for eachother.

Patent vs latent defect. Any issue with the product that the customer could reasonably identify before suffering harm is the customer’s responsibility to avoid. The vendor’s liability here is the cost of the burger. The vendor is not liable for the harm arising from the customer’s failure to look at the food they are about to eat.

The vendor is responsible only for harm caused by defects the customer could not reasonably avoid. Hiddent, latent defects.

If this is a case of subrogation, as I suspect, the customer acquired insurance coverage for the purpose (in part) of mitigating harm due to their own negligence. If this is the case, it is that insurance policy that is liable for the harm caused by the customer’s failure to verify the burger met their requirements.