The entire purpose of these types of laws is to protect consumers against overwhelming corporate interests. Are you saying that all laws governing product quality are nonsense and that we should be relying entirely on the free market to protect our interests? Or do you just not like this particular law because you personally don't agree with it / don't care about device repairability?
The parent company is, but Boeing Commercial Airplanes, the subsidiary that does commercial jets, is headquartered in Washington. Their ginormous production warehouse is also outside of Seattle.
Will they though? If I search for stuff like "Android Go" or "Android Go [insert theoretical troubleshooting issue here]", I don't see anything related to Golang. (I actually see more irrelevant results for Pokemon Go for some reason.)
I mean, there's a reason the US is a republic and not a democracy. Very often the public opinion is just white noise. As the parent comment said, if you don't like the rules, you're supposed to elect new representatives.
This seems a little misleading. He didn't really "win" the right in my opinion. Rather he complained enough such that the company granted him an exception. Based on the headline I was expecting some sort of court decision.
Huh? NJTransit (train and bus) goes directly to Newark, and the last time I rode the AirTrain to JFK I had no problems. This is compared to other cities where I had to take a shuttle from the nearest train station to get to the airport...
There are many people that think they know what they want to do in high school, and maybe even get some experience doing it, but then begin to hate it once they've been doing it intensively for more than a year. The purpose of being a student isn't to restrict yourself to a specific set of knowledge you expect to learn; it's to explore knowledge and develop important skills for use in the workplace. Granted things vary depending on the profession you end up applying for.
It's not a matter of them being equal. It's whether they are categorized under the new policy and will eventually be banned or not. There's no need to have this false dichotomy where one side must be good and one must be bad. It's possible for both sides to be bad, and it's also possible for one side to be more bad than the other.
In the end, my personal opinion is that any form of inciting violence against civilians should be banned, regardless of what your cause is and how much more "in the right" you are than Nazis on a relative scale, which is a pretty low bar.
Hell, the article itself ends with "It’s not entirely clear what effect, if any, this would have on the Equifax situation specifically, since the company has voluntarily limited the scope of its arbitration terms, although clearly it is a serious blow to consumer protections at large."
They clearly were aiming for a more click-baity headline. People want to read more about Equifax I guess.
That's exactly what I said. I was refuting the analogy above about CPUs. It had nothing to do with feeding the wheat to animals. It was simply because his growing of wheat affected how much wheat he would buy from the market.
Huh? That's not the argument at all. The court's opinion was that because he was growing his own wheat, he was not buying wheat from others, which in turn would affect wheat prices (thus interstate commerce). It had nothing to do with the animals. This case was most certainly overreaching, and the court itself later acknowledged that.
Have you read the article? It says the effective recruiting pool is 1.7 million, and the goal is 180,000 recruits. That means you'd need to convince every 1 in 10 eligible person to enlist. Even if the military was a glory-filled job, I doubt you'd get those numbers.
The article says that the primary problem is the number of eligible volunteers. Changing what wars are fought isn't going to affect individuals ability to pass military fitness and character tests. If the problem was that there are so many eligible people, but nobody wants to volunteer, then you might be on to something.
I thought the point of the process was to automate certificate issuance so that HTTPS could be deployed everywhere. I didn't think distributing CAs was part of that, or even desirable.
I just enabled it on my account, and I can still log into GitLab and other OAuth accounts. I presume it just means they can't access Gmail, Drive, or the other listed products.
Reading the NY penal code (not sure for other states), I'm not sure. It wouldn't be rape or a criminal sexual act since there's no intercourse. And for sexual abuse it states the offender must "touch" the victim or "insert" a foreign object. In this case the criminal isn't actually touching the victim, and the victim inserted the object themselves... I imagine this isn't something lawmakers thought of at the time. Hopefully this remains theoretical for the time being.
Where did I say that they misrepresented their production numbers, or committed securities fraud?
In any case it's not paranoia. No matter what the law is, a press release is a first-party source. It is inherently biased toward the company. By no means should it be compared to an independent source, such as a report from an auditor or independent regulators.
And as the very last sentence of my second paragraph says, "just because it's the best doesn't mean it's necessarily good". Your original post says "it is extremely odd to say they are not good sources".
It's a first-person source, coming from the company itself. Thus it's inherently biased toward the company and not the best source. This is as opposed to when the news article itself is a primary source, which is achieved by a reporter actually reporting what is happening in-person at the source of the event.
Of course, in this case it's a bit hard, since the only insight into Tesla's production goals is what they report externally, barring leaks and whatnot. A press release from the company is pretty much the best we can get. But just because it's the best doesn't mean it's necessarily good.