It would be a shock if this car didn’t have most or all of those - the “only cameras” claim is quite obviously supposed to contrast with the other instrumentation options for spatial awareness.

Your going to get by with just 6 cameras huh? I’m sure you have tested that theory in a snowstorm right? At night?

Hold off? This article suggests several journos actually ditched the game entirely to go report on the bigger story.

Not to detract from your correction, but it’s “detract” :)

Q&A

As important as mental health is, whether or not people live or die is not exactly a fringe aspect of this issue.

How about just simply saying out loud that the system of law enforcement is broken and racist. Admit the systemic racism.

Isn’t this exactly that but more extreme? You can still say “Android sucks! Google owns Android! Bad Google!”, but now can’t say the same for Nest. You have to go up the tree and then back down again to associate it with the better known brand.

Well, yes. Classifying these things specifically as “consumables” may be a bit facetious, but owning all of these things is a commitment to a recurring cost, not a one-off outlay, unless you are of retirement age. The point of calling them consumables is to make the counterpoint to the flat-out wrong assertion that…

There’s no such thing as “no consumables”. If there’s nothing you can replace if it breaks, that simply means appliance itself is the only consumable. The Fluffy only has a two-year guarantee. If that was all it lasted then you’d still break even - but it’s going to take a lot longer for the savings to stack up, even…

Can you elaborate? What advantage is there carrying a pair of these things around rather than, say, a pair of flat-soled shoes to throw on?

Near enough all news headlines are reported in the present tense despite their subjects occurring in the past. This one is certainly mangled but it would look a bit off instead if it were converted to past tense.

To be fair, if there’s anything worse than an employer being allowed to fire you for being transgender, it’s an employer being required to fire you for being transgender, and he did cover that (in the case of the military)

Because the subject of the article is a kooky Twitter personality with “alternative” political leanings and an open mind to replying to tweets from Jezebel writers, obvs.

Uh, do you not think prosecutors might have independently had the idea for such an outlandish line of investigation as “look him up online” anyway, and perhaps even have the budget to pony up the $49 or even a warrant for that information regardless?

The fact that the “wi” is contracted into an apostrophe doesn’t mean it’s not there. Way to completely undermine your point by being literalistic when even if there was no explicit threat it is obvious how one could be interpreted in the heat of the moment from what was said.

I certainly don’t claim to understand autism. Do you think autism is simple? I think it’s complicated enough that it is not the flight crew’s fault if they are not well-versed in what is or isn’t typical behaviour, especially for a particular individual they have never met.

You seem to have capitalised the one word that doesn’t appear in the quote above.

The threat is quoted verbatim in the article. How long are you going to pretend like it wasn’t made?

You seriously think a fifteen-year-old-girl is incapable of scratching someone? There’s no extrapolation here. This is a literal reading of what the mother said.