It's so fucking wild to me that the majority opinion is basically: "It's not gerrymandered for racist reasons. It's just gerrymandered for normal, political reasons. So that's totally cool."
Don't get me wrong, this is sad, but no excuse to ban self driving cars. As long as they hurt less people than human drivers do, they're preferable to human drivers. Perfection is unrealistic and unnecessary.
I get what you’re saying and part of me agrees; we all want to see fewer injuries from automobiles and I hope the self-driving tech can get us there.
Another part of me is livid that any of us deem any amount of harm or death from automobiles as being “within acceptable limits”, especially when it’s used to justify the current problems, injuries, and deaths from self-driving tech.
Car companies could be making automobiles [for the US market] much safer for everyone but they refuse to do so. They could:
— Make smaller vehicles
— Make vehicles lighter in weight
— Stop making oversized trucks and SUVs
— Lower the front bumper height and hood height of trucks and SUVs so that pedestrians who are struck are thrown onto or away from the vehicle instead of being smashed into a 6-foot tall grille and then run over.
— Limit the max speed of the vehicles
— Cease putting touch screens in vehicles and go back to physical and tactile knobs, buttons, and switches.
Government policies and regulation could be addressing all this and more as well. Again, they refuse to do so.
The robotaxi braked hard but ran over the person. It then tried to pull over as a safety maneuver but continued driving for 20 feet at a speed of up to seven miles per hour with the pedestrian still under the car.
It's absurd, but under law in England and Wales, it isnt "rape" unless it is P-in-V. Hence the Guardian's use of what would seem like a euphemism. It's only "rape" if it is a male who is the perpetrator.
I hate that she used a messy break up as an excuse to abuse these boys. A lot of people go through messy breakups all the time, and guess what they don't do.
I'll give you that argument as to wire fraud charges, since the whole charge is so broad that it can apply to anything, but the conspiracy to commit money laundering charge is undisputed. Dudes even did searches about that...
The brothers' online search history showed that they studied up and "took numerous steps to hide their ill-gotten gains," the DOJ alleged. These steps included "setting up shell companies and using multiple private cryptocurrency addresses and foreign cryptocurrency exchanges" that specifically did not rely on detailed "know your customer" (KYC) procedures.
They also researched the "very crimes charged in the indictment," the DOJ said. Among search terms found in the brothers' history during the planning phase of the alleged scheme were phrases like "how to wash crypto" and "exchanges with no KYC." Later, seemingly attempting to prepare for any legal consequences from the scheme, the brothers allegedly searched for things like "top crypto lawyers," and "money laundering statute of limitations," and "does the United States extradite to [foreign country]."
Smart enough to hack the blockchain, but still too dumb to crime.
I'm not exactly sympathetic of crypto-bros, particularly ones using bots that got exploited, but these two dummies don't seem great either. Maybe this will at least set some precedent for regulating this shit show. Probably not, though.
I was taking to my dad today and he said "My lawyer is an asshole" and i said "Dad you don't have to say lawyer twice" and I laughed and he laughed and the TV laughed and it was great
Legal News
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.