wearling0600

He sounds similar to those insufferable effective altruists. Most of these people have a genuine skill in something narrow, and the willingness to walk all over everyone in pursuit of the 'highest score' achievement on their 'net worth'.

Yet they've convinced themselves that only they can save the world, so they have to make as much money as possible by any means necessary in order to fund misguided charities. They'll burn down the planet and anyone necessary to make money so they can save it.

Sir Chris is still in control of his charity, so really all that money he gave them is still in pursuit of his own goals, the charity is only spending money it makes through its investments. So whilst it sounds so generous to donate billions to charity and I'm sure it brought him great publicity, it's little more than a tax-efficient way to attempt to bring about societal changes that society didn't ask for.

I'm sure it was also nice that whilst he 'donated' billions to the charity, when it came to his divorce settlement, that was taken out of his 'personal fortune' which amounted to less than a billion.

So don't give him that much credit.

So then... continue using exclusively Apple's store then?

If you consider Apple to be the gold standard for security, you have just keep going as you are.

I don't see how giving other people the freedom to choose infringes on your security.

2&3 completely agree

On 1 though, I agree IF every other game embraced the modding community as much as Bathesda games do. GTA is the only other game I heavily mod, and in comparison it's such a pain in the ass, the game engine is not designed to support it so you get weird bugs, just overall a worst experience.

So I think it's fair to rate the base game highly for its support of mods. They've decided that providing a great experience for mods is a high priority for them. Maybe they can make the base game better if they don't have to make it compatible with whatever modders want to throw at it.

My main concern with this is that what you're doing is desensitising people from the speed limit.

I'm from a country that has arbitrarily defined speed limits and VERY low compliance rates compared to the UK (if you've ever been to Italy for example you know what I'm talking about). The nice thing here is that because the vast majority of roads have a speed limit that 'feels' appropriate (ie the road is designed for its speed limit), the amount of speeding I see here is negligible compared to what I was used to.

And generally here when the limit changes people comply to it because you can trust there's usually a good reason.

There's roads near me that are arbitrarily set to 30 (no pedestrian walkways, no side roads, but it passes near the back of houses and I assume they successfully petitioned the local authority to change it to 30), and traffic flow there is usually 40-45. I've never seen an accident there.

We have a poorly designed intersection not too far away and there's always accidents there to the point that there's now a consultation to fix it.

If this rule came to England, both these roads would be turned to 20, and that won't really be solving anything. In the first example I assume locals will still be driving 40, and it will create unnecessary overtaking because the road is wide and the visibility is good so it's not necessarily unsafe. But you've gone from a safe 40 road to risking head-on collisions pointlessly.

Oh you mean debatable because it's one of the cleanest, cheapest, and safest sources of electricity we have?

Which allows France a degree of energy independence which has helped it not suffer the same amount of pain other countries have now that they're having to kick the cheap Russian gas addiction?

And through huge cross-border interconnects it allows France to sell electricity to neighbouring countries at a huge profit?

Nuclear is not always the answer, but as France has shown, as long as you invest in reliable infrastructure and don't put it in earthquake/tsunami-prone areas, it can be a huge positive for your country.

And you don't have to rely on antagonistic petrostates for to power your homes with gas, or on strip-mining huge swathes of land by equally-antagonistic China for rare-earth metals for your wind turbines/solar panels/battery storage.

I assume that you're talking about the Dacia Spring which got 1 star (though the Renault Zoe got 0 stars recently and a few others did too in the past).

So whilst you're not wrong that these cars currently hold the lowest ratings of cars tested with the new post-2020 procedure, I'm sure a lot of older cars would fare far worse.

And it's fundamentally flawed to subject a tiny 970kg EV city car to the same tests as a 2-3 ton towering SUV. Besides the vastly different use cases, bigger and heavier vehicles will have an inherent advantage in most of the tests - hint none of them are adjusted for the weight of the vehicle.

I'm not saying this is somehow wrong, they're simulating crashing into an average car or a stationary immovable object, just we're automatically discounting small vehicles which have a genuinely valid reason to exist.

The new NCAP ratings only makes sense if we're saying affordable, small, light cars don't need to exist. Like everything automotive nowadays, it's designed to gently nudge us towards big lumbering swollen hatchbacks as the holy grail of the car industry.

You're flat out wrong when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church - I don't know enough about Islam to say whether you're right about that.

In church doctrine, Matthew 16:18 and 16:19, and again in Matthew 18:18, give ultimate authority to St Peter (the first Pope) and all the Popes that followed him.

Essentially the Pope can decide whatever, and it just is. Tomorrow the Pope could decide that gay marriage and abortion are a-okay, and they would be a-okay as far as heaven is concerned.

He might get lynched and the next Pope reverses it, but that mechanism for change exists, and has been used many times in the past - one notable recent one was when the Pope decided dogs go to heaven, so now dogs go to heaven.

Source: ex-Christian who was very involved within the Church institution.

Ah I see, now that you've been proven wrong you're pretending you asked a different question.

You admit that Tesla advertises a "Full Self-Driving Capability" feature, which is basically what the person you said "source or stfu" to.

Whether or not the feature was used in this instance is not what we're discussing here.

We can have this discussion if you're feeling like you're up for it in good-faith, I think both are true that people are overall terrible at the activity of driving so more driver aids are overall better, but also current driver aids are very limited and drivers are not necessarily great at understanding and working within those limits.

They're not the only ones, but Tesla is really the worst offender at overstating their cars' capabilities and setting people up for failure - like in this case.

Where I live you can right now go to Tesla's website and buy a car with "Full Self-Driving Capability" with a small print that includes the disclaimer that it doesn't make the vehicle autonomous, for whatever that's worth...

You're assuming that they're honest about their reasons, which is not the case.

The main message of the film (besides being a 2h ad for Mattel) is gender equality and female empowerment.

This threatens these people more than homosexuality, but I imagine even for them saying "we don't want our women to even imagine a world where they're not subservient to men" would be a tough sell.

Far fewer people are willing to stand up to defend the LGBT community so they're a convenient scapegoat ('conservatives' will always find a group small enough to target in order to push their unpopular policies, it just works).

I'm not sure how they got to that conclusion, but we can kinda guess.

The tongue is PACKED with blood vessels, so in case of any damage it can get tons of nutrients to fix itself. But this takes a very energy-intensive.

So if the rest of the body would have the same density of blood vessels, we'd need drastically more energy to feed all of that.

And I guess they're asserting that all else being the same we wouldn't be able to ingest or process sufficient food to keep that going.

It's a bit of a strange argument though, I'm going far outside of my physiology understanding, but you'd have to imagine that had we evolved such advanced healing capabilities, we'd have also evolved the means to feed them. And OP underestimates just how much food someone can eat. As someone dealing with an ED, I can tell you that you can easily triple your calorie intake (though whether that's sufficient I wouldn't be able to say...).

All in I'd look forward to OP defending their assertion.