With a car, you should always drive at a speed so you can stop in the distance you can see and predict as the driver. With a train, you can’t really do that if you don’t want to go walking speed around every bend in the track. So a high speed train is always operating in a state where it needs external sources to tell it if the way is clear.
Also because nobody feels profitable to use Waymo to seed chaos and create riots. In that case the situation will change drastically in a couple minutes.
People would still blame Waymo, not the government, so there is not any gain unless you are a Waymo's competitor.
This is a nothingburger. I'm willing to believe the entirety of the story as it's presented. Kusher and Co. are plainly, unrepentantly corrupt. This isn't an expose or even an article: it's a book excerpt and an advertisement which has no citations.
If the Dutch showed the screenshots and stated they were genuine this information would matter.
It's not the result of 100 years of democracy: it's the result of Euclid v Ambler and the subsequent cases that support it. Exclusionary zoning baring residential zoning outright is a taking and should be treated as such. Filthy poors are a nuisance:
"With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that, in such sections, very often the apartment house is a mere parasite . . ." Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)
Annoying but you'd probably do the same, you categorically cannot be funding the media you're consuming when you're visiting the BBC on a non-UK IP. The ad impressions don't cover it, and BBC Worldwide take a cut before the BBC proper receives anything anyway.
The BBC proper doesn't receive anything from advertising, in fact. But that's because what most people think of as 'the BBC' actually isn't the BBC proper.
It is indeed the BBC proper (i.e. the corporation with the royal charter) that encompasses BBC News, which is the source of this article, as one of its divisions. But BBC News and the BBC proper are not the commercial organizations, i.e. BBC Studios and whatnot.
Inside the U.K., there are no advertisments on this or any BBC News article. Outwith the U.K., what people get is actually coming from a separate commercial company, BBC Global News Ltd..
> The BBC proper doesn't receive anything from advertising, in fact. But that's because what most people think of as 'the BBC' actually isn't the BBC proper.
Not only did I make this distinction in the comment you're replying to, but you're also just wrong -- the BBC takes about £5b a year from BBC Worldwide and part of that money is ad impressions. The point is that it doesn't cover the cost to supply the service.
Blind. The article is referring to blind and partly blind people. I'm visually impaired and thus I wear corrective lenses. This practice of applying euphemisms to every disability and impairment is stupid and unhelpful.
Just wanting to point out that visual impairment is a scale.
Very few people can't actually see anything, and so you are choosing your level of visual impairment as 'not blind' but someone else's at 'blind'. Someone else may put that line in a different place.
Fitting something not binary to a binary scale is hard.
One thing that we can all agree on is that they have some issue with their sight, e.g. some visual impairment.
“Visually impaired” isn’t really a euphemism for “blind.” It’s a broader term that can include people with different degrees of vision loss, including people who are partially sighted and people who are blind. So in this context, the article is using the term pretty normally.
Also, wearing glasses doesn’t automatically make someone visually impaired. If your vision is fully corrected with glasses or contacts, you generally wouldn’t be considered visually impaired. The term usually refers to vision loss that remains even with the best available correction.
They can just add those people to the board. It’s not a set number and they don’t regularly add or remove people unless they think they can bring something to the table. Sometimes that is simply “holds a bajillion shares” but if they wanted a High Frequency Trading CEO on the board for insight into that, they could add both his kid and that CEO.
It's also entirely possible he's essentially competent at the job of being a board member which is a pretty do-little job if the CEO is doing a good job.
Nothing in the UN report claims that this was an intentional strike on civilians. They make NO claim to that effect.
The claim is that "the U.S. failed in its obligation to do everything feasible to verify that it was a military objective. Updating targeting information and acting upon such information falls within the category of feasible precautions an attacking party is required to take under IHL . . . the strikes are a violation of the obligation to distinguish between civilian objects.
And:
" the Mission concluded that when targeting the school building, the U.S
acted wilfully, that is with the requisite mental element of recklessness (
dolus eventualis)."
And (finally):
". . . the Mission found that these strikes constituted an
indiscriminate attack in violation of the principle of distinction."
The UN report's claim is that the US negligently used outdated information which led them to think this compound hit was still a military target.
It's evident you didn't read the report and submitted a shitpost.
When it comes to food contamination, even an infinitesimal quantity is noteworthy. Tbh many posts on this board are relatively low quality (and/or AI generated) but still spark interesting discussion.
