Because we don’t want them doing surge pricing.

Is there some reason we want brands to join the conversation?

I’ll make an exception for uploaders.

That’s because they banned the accounts.

Anyone who has an account on pornhub deserves their ban.

If you were to use their network to take advantage of the features for anything that the “predator” behind doesn’t care, you’re fine.

But what will the predator care about tomorrow? Or next year? And how confident are you that aggregate data is not what they want, for whatever reason?

Removed by mod

Yea, that’s part of why I don’t know for sure if they make cars the way the guy at the top of this thread is describing.

Can’t speak to “required.” But I know it used to be done.

I think what he wants is the front turn signal to wrap around the front, so I can see the left signal from the right quarter.

I’m not aware that this is not the case, but I don’t know that I would have noticed if it was not.

Scientists were so caught up with weather they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.

Tenth Amendment, might apply here.

This sort of thing is supposed to discourage the bots that reddit is plagued with.

I find it hard to believe that it’s legal to buy a company, but not it’s contractual obligations. Seems line a hell of a loophole for getting out of things you don’t want to do.

Was there ever any doubt?

I myself like to argue things just to argue them. It’s a good way to find out if I’m right, or to learn thing I didn’t know, and correct my misunderstandings.

But I know that’s not everyone’s idea of a good time.

If I was her, I’d publish the threat and result in the place I hosted the mod, then nuke my own mod.

But I’m a spiteful little shit.

Huh. Never realized chromebooks were priced that low.

Thanks for the correction.

when you’re exiled alone on an island…

50,000 corpses at Waterloo would debate this one with you.

Desks are cheaper, and the hole only slightly impairs functionality.

Again, this is not immediate self-defence, this is something else entirely: this type of situation demands systemic change.

I’m aware it’s not immediate self defence, that’s kind of the point of the question. How many people die while you work on that change? Why are ok killing to defend yourself now, but not to defend a hundred people tomorrow?

You remove them from authority then send them on their merry way to live out their standards alone, far from the rest of us.

And you hope they don’t come back with more people and a plan for revenge. Napoleon was sent off on his merry way. His return cost over 50,000 lives.

Friggin’ children know this already, if someone doesn’t play nice, you stop playing with them.

And what if they won’t let you stop playing with then? Children know bullies, too, and know that you can’t just ignore them.

Why the hell are we still debating the ““virtues”” of murder?!

Because you are unwilling to admit that some people need killing. Not very many, in my opinion. There are usually better options. But killing someone is the only way to be 100% sure that they stop hurting people.

There is no acceptable context for killing someone other than immediate self-defence

But you know he’s gonna kill a hundred people next week. Starve ten thousands people to death over the next six months. Start world war 3, and cause the death of millions of people. Those people people have no recourse to self defence, but you could defend them, right now.