Apologies, I had meant “man” as person but I recognize that usage is dated. No gender assumption was intended.

This man has never heard of ohm’s law

There are dozens of us!

Literally every paid daycare has a profit motive. The issue you take is with scale, not motive.

Shhhh

Chill dude, he isn’t pushing some agenda by putting in a reference to a bible verse. Your own interpretation of the judge’s action aren’t based in reality. Focus on the substance of the issue at hand.

How does including a bible verse make this judge a “regressive bigot”? You are taking the role of bigot here.

a true servant of justice can’t have other masters

Judges are allowed to be religious. They just can’t use religion as the basis of their judgement, which this judge did not do. They can quote scripture in the same way they can quote any other piece of literature.

Eh, it’s not really so different from the situation you described. I want to support FOSS in my work, but the chances of moving the needle on donations or contributions is slim to none.

My favorite option: use the GPL licensed solution to wow your boss by getting the project done fast. Then, the company either gets sued, thereby financially contributing to the project, or you are asked to replace it with your own implementation, giving you job security.

We shouldn’t invade countries for oil, regardless of who runs the country. Stop defending imperialism.

America is, trump isn’t

Micron is American and is competitive, especially in some verticals.

I’d vote for Newsom. He’s not my favorite person but he’s a fine politician. I’d prefer a more progressive candidate (and will vote for one in primaries) but I honestly think Newsom would be good for the country.

Okay so we should do either everything or nothing, no solutions can exist between extremes. Got it 🙄

The law doesn’t mandate a touch screen, nor that it be on while driving. And why should it? The goal is to address the blind spot, not to tell automakers how to build head units.

Because it’s hard enough to get regulation passed, and telemetry is completely unrelated to backup cameras.

Put yourself in the shoes of one of the far-too-many Americans that have accidentally killed a child because they could not see them, regardless of whether they were driving an F-250 or a Fiat 500. This is a safety problem we faced and addressed with regulation. This is a good thing. The second-order effects are not the fault of the regulators trying to make cars safer, that falls squarely on the auto companies who would have done that regardless of regulation.

This isn’t the fault of regulators. They would have done this regardless of backup camera regulation.

The mandate isn’t that cars have infotainment screens, it’s that they have backup cameras. The choice to use the infotainment screen is the automakers, not the regulators. Early backup cameras had the screen embedded behind the rearview mirror, which was a much safer solution IMO. But cost cutting killed that because it was a second screen.