Honestly, everything you have said is dishonest and/or disingenuous. The idea that the price of the vehicle is going to be reduced by 90% as a result of subsidies and innovation is both stupid and dishonest. You should also look up the definition of authoritarian.

They responded

You’re saying “they”, but it’s you. And no you didn’t, repeating what you said before isn’t addressing the issues.

Adressed twice.

Never addressed at all, you pivoted to the oil industry. You didn’t address the subsidies from China or the unfair trade practices.

America will not subsidize to that level, if they could, and no amount of innovation is going to combat subsidization or the unfair trade practices.

According to a Bloomberg article, China will sell EVs at under $10,000, undercutting the price of the average American EV by $50,000. Are you seriously arguing that “investment to lower cost” will reduce the cost by 85-90%? That’s simply a ludicrous assertion.

You think US products won’t have spyware?

I don’t think that collecting anonymized usage data, is the same as unlimited spying going back to an authoritarian government. So no, absolutely nothing comparable.

You’re literally just talking to yourself, ignoring any mention of selling below cost, which is the biggest issue, with spyware being a close 2nd.

Americans get cheaper EVs…

For a few years, until the American automakers go bankrupt, as you said, then the Chinese automakers increase prices 10x.

…and the legacy auto industry gets taught a valuable lesson as companies who refused to modernize go bankrupt.

What a valuable lesson, get subsidized by an authoritarian government so that you can offer vehicles below cost. Also be sure to add spyware for the aforementioned authoritarian government.

Do you even understand what below cost means? No amount of modernization will counteract it.

China is subsidizing EV production and selling cars below cost. Allowing them to be sold in the US would kill the domestic EV market. How is that better for Americans?

They may not know step 3, but they know that step 4 is PROFIT!

Have they found a way to make the remote more slippery?

Being a passerby and actively engaging with the incident is way more than enough cause to identify and talk to them.

Poisoning the well a bit by saying actively engaging. Sounds like they are passively watching.

That warrant should absolutely be granted.

Thoroughly disagree.

It’s very different than geofencing an entire area. It’s specific…

Ok.

and directly connected to the crime, whether they committed it or not.

Not so much, and they already, presumably have the video.

That said, that person is also absolutely a suspect and should be looked at at minimum at surface level.

Other than mere location, what reason do you have to suspect the person? You can look, sure, but I don’t see grounds for a warrant.

Yeah, that’s probably worded better.

Assuming all they had was a live stream of police responding, and that it didn’t start before police arrived, which would demonstrate prior knowledge, I don’t see probable cause. It’s much more likely that a passer-by recorded it.

Neither of these is reasonable.

1. There certainly are situations where this could be reasonable; however, when your parameters return 30,000 people it’s not nearly tailored enough.

2. To get a warrant you need probable cause that a person committed a crime, I don’t see how a live stream could meet that burden unless it starts prior to the arrival of the police.

These are both abuses by law enforcement, or more clearly, a path that allows their job to be easier by infringing on people’s rights.

Imagine complaining to a social media platform because you’re not allowed to be shitty to someone else.

I especially liked that the Check on Amazon button for a $1,400 New 65" monitor links to a Used 27" monitor for $2,200.

Anyway, the new terms are about waiving your right to a class action lawsuit. It’s weird to me because I’d never considered filing a class action lawsuit against Roku until this. I wish Roku TVs weren’t cheap walmart brand sh*t. Someone with some actual money might sue them and sort this out…

The good thing about class action lawsuits is that you don’t need money. The law firms are just about the only ones that get paid. If you pay attention to class action settlements it’s often something like $3m in attorneys fees, $5,000 to the named plaintiffs, and then a 3 month subscription to the companies own service or a refund of out of pocket expenses, during a specified period, not to exceed $150 per person.

Long story short, firms are more than happy to take on a class action that can be won, but you won’t get much.

A properly setup suppressed pistol fired from within a vehicle would be fairly quiet

A Glock 17 9mm pistol is 162 db, with a suppressor it is 126 db. That’s roughly as loud as a jackhammer. Not exactly what I’d call quiet.

We all experience what our brains cobble together from some sensory inputs, saying “it wasn’t as loud as a gunshot” is, at best, a meaningless statement, and at worst, utterly idiotic.

What the hell are you talking about about? An acorn hitting a car might be 50-80 decibels; a Glock 17 9mm pistol is 162 decibels, that’s louder than a jet taking off. That is ridiculously loud, perception doesn’t factor in at that point. If you can’t tell the difference between an acorn and a gunshot then you are not properly tethered to reality.

Do you know how loud a gunshot is…? And he thought the sound of an acorn hitting the car was a shot fired by the suspect inside the car he’s standing next to? Either he’s lying or he’s remarkably stupid, either way he should not have a gun.

Wait…are you suggesting we solve a problem? Or even two problems simultaneously? That’s absurd! We need tax cuts, deregulation, and corporate bailouts…I may not know the problem, but I know the solution. /s