If you live in Florida, constitutional enshrinement of both cannabis legalization and abortion rights are on the ballot in November. Actively advocate for voter turnout in November to combat the conservative retirees that are inhibiting your freedom.
It’s insane that her first thought, in response to the question of why people were surprised, was the color of her skin, followed by her gender, and only then did she mention the thing that was probably the first thing everyone else thought of: her age.
Why did people find your amazing mathematical achievement amazing? Racism. Sexism… Oh yeah, also because we’re young. So not because it’s cool, it’s hard and it’s amazing? Nope, just because we happen to be black girls in school, and did this in America…
Such sadness man. Even the bit about people saying African Americans don’t have the brains for it or something. Wow, it’s sad.
They should do nothing. Iran can’t invade Israel. Israel can’t invade Iran If Iran attacks civilians, they risk setting off a larger war in the area. Iran isn’t popular with the Arabs. I suspect they’ll do a small limited attack against something Israeli and call victory. They know if it went to war, they’ll lose.
The Arabs? What does that mean? That’s like saying all South Americans think collectively and cohesively. Arabs are comprised of vastly different cultures from vastly different regions. There is a lot of nuance and the word is often used as an orientalism.
As an Egyptian, you're overthinking it. Almost all Arabs have a very similar image of Israel because we've seen firsthand (or secondhand from Palestinians) how ridiculously horrible Israel is.
Fair, and much respect. There is an aspect of centrist-right to far-right western culture that consolidates all Arabs into one group with intent to demonize. It is fairly common.
I don’t know about elsewhere, but they’ve been doing it in California for a while now.
Edit: there have been camping bans that have been passed since 2016 in various cities and towns all over California. These bans specifically targeted the homeless, and the thugs in our police departments have been using them as an excuse to steal all their property, throw it into a garbage truck, including their IDs and other personal documents. Then they ticket them, and when they can’t pay the ticket they go to jail.
In San Diego they passed a camping ban last year, I’ve been protesting it since then. The Union Tribune probably.has some news stories, but they absolutely have been doing it, and I don’t have a subscription.
No clue. I have been focused on California since 2016. In my experience it is easier to enact local change, to influence state level changes, and later federal changes. I’m not really focusing on anything but my local city council meetings, and the various elections, especially judges, city council, and school board. Other than that I pay attention to my representatives / assemblymen, and senators at both the state and federal level. I do pay some attention to the presidential race, but as a leftist I have to hold my nose and vote for the milquetoast democratic candidate every single time for the last 5 presidential elections, and probably the 6th time in my life in November. Not one presidential candidate that I voted for in the primaries has ever gotten the nomination.
The case in question, namely Grant’s Pass vs Johnson, originated in an Oregon town. Another blue state.
TBH I wouldn’t be at all surprised if most of these recent laws come from Washington, California, and Oregon. They have the worst homelessness problems, and that’s partially due to the fact that all three states have historically had robust social safety nets, so it was safer to be homeless on the west coast.
Almost every state has some form of law outlawing homelessness. homelesslaw.org/first-national-study-of-state-law…The USA is a diverse place and homelessness affects different areas differently. If we want to make homelessness a crime we need to be sure to also provide a method to grandfather in or help those who are currently homeless.
The reticulated python is the longest snake in the world, according to London’s Natural History Museum. They are native to Southern Asia and can grow to be more than 20 feet long.
The longest reticulated python ever found in the wild was discovered in 1912, according to the museum, and was measured to be nearly 33 feet long – “more than half the length of a bowling lane and makes this snake longer than a giraffe is tall.”
Zoo Atlanta, which houses reticulated pythons, says the snakes “have a reputation for being aggressive.”
The snakes are occasionally kept as pets in the U.S.
Last year, a 14-foot-long reticulated python was found dead on side of the road on Long Island, prompting a search for its owner.
In 2022, a 16-foot albino reticulated python that slithered through a Texas neighborhood for months was finally rescued and returned to its owner.
Yeah, the favorite tankie mantra of “hey let’s bring the genocide/civil war here so the sheeple will finally wake up and we’ll have the utopia we’ve always dreamed about, ya’ll!”
…that’s even if these people are actually leftists in the first place (as opposed to Russian trolls and right wing hacks). In any case, you have be deeply stupid not to realize the difference between the two choices we actually have before us, and the consequences of fascists in the White House.
They should be locked up, maximum sentence. American idiotic laws don’t apply, they are just like everyone else. Criminals that broke the law and smuggled ammo in. Ignorance is not an excuse of the law, American justice system loves that phrase.
"As a firearms owner myself, there’s no legitimate use for a bump stock – not for self defense, not in a law enforcement context, not even in military applications … but what they are tailor made for is a mass shooting.
There’s lots of non-legitimate ways people use guns. For example, I’ve only ever shot them for fun. I imagine being able to have a simulated machine gun experience without all the red tape is pretty fun.
However, we outlawed three-wheeled ATVs despite them being fun so it’s not an argument.
According to traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad,[94][95][96][97] with the marriage being consummated when she reached the age of nine or ten years old whilst she still played with dolls.[98][b] In the commentary of the Sahih Bukhari it is written that, "Playing with dolls is forbidden in Islam, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she did not yet reach the age of puberty."[106] Beginning in the early twentieth century, Christian polemicists and orientalists attacked what they deemed to be Muhammad's deviant sexuality, for having married an underage[c] girl; acute condemnations came from the likes of Harvey Newcomb and David Samuel Margoliouth while others were mild, choosing to explain how the "heat of tropics" made "girls of Arabia" mature at an early age.[108][114] While most Muslims defended the traditionally accepted age of Aisha with vigor emphasizing on cultural relativism, the political dimensions of the marriage, Aisha's "exceptional qualities" etc., some — Abbas Mahmoud al-Aqqad in Egypt and others[d] — chose to re-calculate the age and fix it at late adolescence as a tool of social reform in their homelands or even, mere pandering to different audiences.[108][115][e]
In the late-twentieth century and early twenty-first century, opponents of Islam have used Aisha's age to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia, as well as explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies.
from your comment it seems like you think they deserved to die, and immediately copy pasted your wall of text when someone accused you of racism. not a good look i must say.
I was mocking the religious practice to honor a pedophile that resulted in people dying. I was accused of being wrong, I provided citation to support my position.
The pelgrimage to Mekka where Muslims worship uuuuuhhhhh…
Mohammed! Their God!
Which uhhhh
frantically pastes generic poorly researched Wikipedia article full of contradictions
Pedophile!
Don’t look up the history of anyone from before the 20th century when these supposed Christians suddenly reached enlightenment. The inclusion of Christians is especially weird since they always pushed for younger ages of marriage than Muslims in the middle ages. Back then the Muslims were supposedly prudes.
Wonder why everyone didn’t wait until they were 35 to get married in a time where the average life expectancy was 31 years.
Humans have even changed their bodies since the middle ages. Menstrual periods are later. Maturity goes slower. People don’t die in 30 years.
Children having their parents die when they are 10 and get married at 20. Or children getting married at 10 and having their parents die at 20. All great choices which we don’t have to make and can moral high ground about.
I could ask why you think dating an 18 year old is fine but a 17 year old is not. Because modern research suggests the brain only finishes development at 25. But of course our sense of “morals” is solely based on arbitrary laws in < present time > in < present location >.
Her 9-year-old body was ‘ready for it’ <-- You are here
He had to plow her, as her parents could die any day <-- Moving here
Why would there be a problem with a 50-year old ‘dating’ a 9-year old <-- Nice to see that thrown in
She loved him
She was begging for it
Furthermore, your excuses just confirm Sunzu’s allegation that ‘modern’ Muslims have not ‘moved on’ from these practices - they use them to excuse legalizing and enabling pedophilia today. Muhammad set the bar for them. And he set it very, very low.
You striped away points never mentioned and did not answer the question about the age of 25.
100 years ago the age of consent in Delaware was 7 years old. Your argument has been a non issue for the entire history of humanity until last 100 year until your magic universal definition of a chil turning adult at 18 took place.
And let’s not forget the age of consent being 12 in many American places up to recently.
But nonetheless nobody takes this dumb moral highgrounding serious as the secular west is currently committing a Genocide on mostly children in a concentration camp in Gaza. But those are of course not children they are “terrorists” who are allowed to be killed.
Muslims do not generally believe in cultural or moral relativism. Allah is the one true God, his moral teachings are objectively correct. Why offer them a way out that they themselves aren’t able to coherently accept?
Besides, cultural relativism is nonsense. If someone tells me it’s okay to molest children, their perspective is not “just as valid” as mine. They’re a monster.
Yes, this means a lot of people in the past, and today, are monsters. That’s extremely plausible.
Society committing Genocide on children and calling them terrorists suddenly are very worried about when a girl of menstrual age willingly gets married.
Calling 10yo a girl mestrual age is really stretching what that means. Stop digging your own hole. You really need to consider what you are really saying here. The optics are beyond bad. I hope you really don't think that.
This has nothing to with the Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza. Pretty sure most people can agree that Mohammed was a pedo and Israel is a committing war crimes.
Frankly you mixing the two together is not appreciated.
If she had a menstruation she was of menstrual age. And if she then willingly got married that’s her own decision.
You were bringing up moral “evolution”.
Simply pointing out that a society electing leaders knowing they will commit Genocide on little babies does not appear morally evolved really hits a nerve.
Would you suggest I refer to all Americans as “baby murderers”?
Does it count when talking about prophets, deities, gods and such? Weren’t they meant to be perfect?
I don’t recall the possibility of god and his messangers being imperfect, in any century.
We humans, we are flawed and have societies whose notions are not static because we evolve. God can’t afford the excuse of “errors of the past, I evolved”
You are ascribing evolution to a society of warmongers committing Genocide on children in Palestine. A society addicted more to wealth than human suffering trying to lecture people on what correct morals are.
A society with an abundance of food where people are starving.
I would reconsider how correct the Wests morals are.
I didn’t even specify any religion. I just said that god, any god, by definition, can’t evolve.
This ain’t Hercules adventures where gods are just sky humans with perks. Mainstream gods (&co) are all perfect in their “mysterious ways”.
As such, if a prophet was into pedophilia, then either pedophilia is right (which I personally find odd… but them I’m merely human…) or that prophet wasn’t exactly the most exemplary lad.
Whatever the case, people’s lives are worth of dignity, be it Palestinians, Israelis, South Africans or Santa. That’s not what I was arguing against at all. We can defend people while, at the same time, pointing the finger out at some bullshit they do.
The west is also full of bullshit. So what? We can also point the finger at that. Be my guest. I never said that we were perfect.
The discussion is so shunned in Western society that it is well understood one should always repeat your opinion in public and never question it.
I would once again ask why teenagers having sex is regarded as totally normal as long as long as the person they are having sex with is not 18 yet.
If teenagers truly should not be subject to sexual experiences because they are not ready then surely this would not be normal. Or is it okay if a victim performs the deed?
That’s not the case in my western country but sure, hit that scarecrow. I personally know underage people dating 25-ish people.
What is frowned upon is people in completely different levels of maturity creating a tremendous imbalance, and usually abuse. DiCaprio dating teens is not a “we stand on an equal footing and love each other” kind of thing, is a “I’m famous and will use this fact to mess with teenagers”.
An elderly hardly has a healthy relationship with a teenager, and this is particularly true for arranged marriages.
This western civilization thing of your already had that in the past. We stopped doing that rather recently as we figured it creates more trouble than not. Let’s not pretend that “western” is some sort of axiom that just appeared and not the product of the evolution of some society. Just like eastern societies have such evolutions in some aspects. For example some eastern civilisations figured that clean spaces are better and so they try real hard to try to keep them that way. Of course you’re free to argue that this cleanliness is not needed so it is a purely subjective thing of these societies and not necessarily better, but sociologists night disagree.
As for “ok if the victim preforms the deed”, that’s irrelevant. The same criteria applies. Promoting healthier relationships promotes a healthier society. If some 14/yo teenager is obsessed with dating way older men for whatever reason, chances are people are going to judge it, legal or not, no matter the society.
Society had no issues with this for the past millenia. This new social construct of adulthood and finding it weird is far more recent. Mohammed’s first wife was 41 when he was 25. Age differences at the time were far more usual.
Granted that our culture now changes so fast that it would mean someone that grew up with Madonna and someone that grows up with Skibidi toilet would get together. The generational cultural gaps are far greater than in the past. But this is overcome when people spend time together.
The only real reason that people can use is that a younger person can be easier to manipulate. Which holds an element of truth but the question remains at what age we allow a person full control over their actions. Currently this is 18. Yet research suggests the brain is only fully matured at 25. So will the new age be 25?
The Leonardo DiCaprio example is a classic one. Most people that say they would never act similar to Dicaprio will do so once they are actually presented with the option. It is moral highgrounding purely based on never having been presented with the option.
Everyone considers stealing wrong. Everyone condemns big fat pigs robbing millions from the financial system wrong. If I had to place a bet, most people would of they had the chance. The fact people are hypocritical doesn’t mean it is not condemnable. DiCaprio is a piece of shit in a lot of people’s mind, just not in the judicial system.
No shit that a lot of middle-aged or maybe elderly man would enjoy 16 year old teasing them. Not so much for woman but if I had to bet it would happen as well. Our sex drive plays a lot here. Back in the we’re animals in nature thingy, putting dicks into young women was almost always a “good thing”; propagating genes and stuff. Just so happens that we’re trying not to behave like wild beasts anymore.
The brain would ideally be fully matured before one is to take life-long decisions, however 25 years is an awful lot of time. My armchair sociologist says that people would not tolerate that for the same reason people do not tolerate expecting for their kids to be 25 before allowing them to cross the road by themselves. Maturity is not a linear thing. At the age of 5 you’ll try to kill yourself every now and then. At the age of 10 you barely do that. 18 is an arbitrary line, yes, because it is believed that most people at that age are able to figure life long decisions well-enough. People still get some sparks of development after 18, but it is nowhere compared to the 5-10 or the 10-15.
You state that age differences at the time were far more common. Well, at the time most marriages were arranged and considered plenty of things above the wellbeing of the brides.
In any case, we’re working around my key argument. We’re all silly animals, but god and it’s prophets are supposed to be perfect. You can point a finger at them for that. Yes, fuck Francis. That guy is a piece of shit as well and points fairly well at the bullshit that Christianity is. This is not a anti-muslim rant; it is a “can we condemn condemnable people that were supposed to know what they were doing as they were ‘perfect’?”
You are correct in your assessment of perfection. But the question is what is perfect morality. And mostly one of where to draw the line. The equation with stealing and murder is questionable as that has been a moral wrong through all of humanity. Whereas this debate is mostly one of the last 100 years. In the past this objective morality had never existed thus I question whether it is as objective as you make it seem. When you go a few generations back you’ll usually find your great-great grandfather was a 25 year old dude that married as 13-15 year old.
Flipping to the modern age I knew a 19 year old guy that was ashamed of dating a 17 year old because he felt other people thought there was too big of an age gap. A mere two year difference. The “objective morality” on this subject really appears to be “whatever everyone else thinks about it”. Even funnier is that a 60 year old dating a 30 year old is suddenly becoming predatory too. The last 10-20 years people are starting to condemn two “mature adults” with a large age gap for having a relationship. DiCaprio is a perfect example of this. He violates no laws nor “morals” but somehow is wrong.
The brain would ideally be fully matured before one is to take life-long decisions, however 25 years is an awful lot of time.
If were morally consistent we would acknowledge that if the brain is “fully matured” at 25 that the age of consent would be 25…But as that is currently not the societal norm we see no reason to accept this. If society had already changed into this logic I am quite sure you would adhere to it as well. Especially seeing that there would now be a “scientific reasoning” behind it. And it would be even more difficult to convince you because now I would have to argue with science. Yet we stick to this very arbitrary number of 18. Even you are saying 18 is okay and 16 is weird. I cannot comprehend this. Make it 25.
Just so happens that we’re trying not to behave like wild beasts anymore.
The question of consent is a very emphasized one that was introduced back then. Before the prophet consent was an arbitrary cause. Women were regarded as property at that time. Suddenly men had to actually appeal to a woman to marry her. Even in modern day if a woman does not wish to get married at a young age there is absolutely no reason for her to do so. The legal permissible age refers to the age at which a woman gets control to decide. It does not force her to get married. It only presents her with the right to do so.
We still condone sexual intercourse between teenagers and accept that when they reach puberty some have a desire to become sexually active. We have not mitigated this in fact we promote safe sex in schools and say experimenting is totally fine. We have only restricted it to other “children”. We made the age gap a defining factor in what we deem okay, and don’t say that “children” are being “raped” by other “children”. Once again, I can’t find moral consistency in this. If the brain’s finished age is 25 why do we condone a 17 and 15 year old, but not a 19 and 17 year old? And now even between “adults” this age gap is coming into play.
There appears to be no coherent argument. Everything that is deemed okay is based on current traditions and the “science” is ignored.
In 1885 the legal age of consent in the UK was raised to 16. The average life expectancy of adults had barely changed.
So while this disproves your correlation theory, it’s also important to remind the reader that correlation is not the same as causation. Society, the role of government, the rule of law and its encroachment on personal choice changed hugely from the 13th Century and 17th Century - I would therefore claim that society would not have been accepting of paedophilia in the 13th Century despite the lack of law.
Sexual desire of prepubescent children has, as far as I know, never been considered the norm.
'You will find a lot of confusion in the discussion of this legislation on the web. My understanding is that, while they did introduce an element of parental involvement in approving a marriage, the Acts left the accepted minimum ages where they were in traditional canon (that is church) law. So it was possible for a girl to marry at 12 and a boy at 14. Even if the parents disagreed with the decision, there were perfectly legal ways in which the marriage could take place.
And we are still all teaching teenage “kids” about sexuality and “experimenting” is totally fine. Do the sex thing “kids”! As long as they do it with other “kids”…
As for the rest of the Euro moral high grounding I don’t know which history books you have been reading but marrying young and the monarchy was a rather popular combo. Plenty of kings with brides even younger than 9.
Even now our leading Elites enjoy private Epstein island visits filled with girls not considered legal age.
Muslims do not worship Muhammed, at all. Shia do have a weird obsession with his family that can reach worship according to my knowledge as a Sunni Muslim, but no serious sect of Islam worships Muhammed. "We don't worship our prophet, unlike what the Christians did to Jesus" is an important part of Islamic identity.
If that’s all the money the city needs to clean up after tourists I think it’s extremely reasonable. There are a lot of cities that already impose hotel taxes that are significantly higher than this amount.
There’s been a big pushback by residents about the commoditization of their city but, to be honest, Venice itself is a tourist attraction and can benefit the regional economy a lot better if that reality is accepted. If the city would like to declare an isolationist policy and bar tourists completely it’s certainly an option - but the infrastructure required to preserve it through climate change is far beyond the means of the local economy.
It’s not particularly fair but if we want the city to continue existing it needs to pay for a lot of infrastructure to combat rising sea-level and, especially, increased variability due to storms.
Think it’s mainly about keeping it liveable now. Searise is a lost case anyhow for a place like Venice, 2100 or 2200 what’s the difference, It’ll be lost beneath the waves or hidden behind such a tall permanent seawall that the bay basically dies (and starts smelling, sanding etc). No-one is discussing really long term, at all concerning cc sealevels. Most coastal areas are just an illusion to keep dry long term (100+ years from now), there’s no turning back damages done. Planning with optimistic 2100 sealevels is really short term compared to the scale of the issue.
Cities like this should do (and likely have) an ecological and infrastructure impact study on how much tourism affects the city, where, and to what extent per how many tourists. It could then come up with reasonable costs for maintaining the city, and even limits for how many tourists to allow per year, if necessary.
The push back from the residents is a bit of knee jerk reaction, it’s them saying “treat our city like an amusement park, fine, pay like you’re visiting an amusement park”.
The filing also includes all the shares held by the former president. Trump, however, remains under a “lockup” deal that largely restricts him from selling his shares for another roughly five months. His son, Donald Trump Jr., who is a director on the board, and CEO Devin Nunes, are also bound by the lockup.
The stock plunge has erased billions from Trump’s stake — at least on paper. The shares soared when they began trading on March 26, giving Trump’s 57% ownership position a value of $6.25 billion. But after DJT’s recent slump, that stake is worth $2.1 billion, representing a paper loss of $4.15 billion.
People keep saying trump wasn’t prevented from selling for 6 months, and I have no idea why.
But this is why I was happy it started trading so high. trump was/is pushing supporters to buy shares as a way of donating. But those people are throwing their money away and it’ll still crash before trump can sell. He’s not just losing profit, he losing donations too.
Plus this way trump has to spend 6 months watching something literally trading under his name (djt) constantly hemorage money and there’s not a damn thing he can do about it.
When he saw that 6 billion number, he immediately considered it “his money” so even if he makes a couple hundred million selling his whole stake in this; it’s going to feel like he’s lost billions to him.
And hopefully the DJT stock lumps on without him for years as a shitty penny stock
People keep saying trump wasn’t prevented from selling for 6 months, and I have no idea why.
So, yes, he’s currently subject to a lockup agreement. But, the board can always waive that agreement, and given the board is made up of Trump acolytes, there’s no reason to take it too seriously (yes, if they did that, it could be subject to a shareholder lawsuit if a sale resulted in a plunge in the share price, based on the claim that the board was failing in its fiduciary duty, but by the time any such trial made its way through the courts, it probably wouldn’t matter).
The board can vote to waive it. That’s… how boards work. They could vote to waive Junior’s and Nunes’ lockups, too, if they wanted to. The only recourse shareholders would have is a lawsuit.
Edit: And if you don’t want to believe me, maybe you’ll believe a professional financial writer:
Also, Trump’s shares are subject to a lockup agreement, so he’s not allowed to “lend, offer, pledge, hypothecate, encumber, donate, assign, sell, contract to sell … or otherwise transfer or dispose of” his shares for six months, which presumably covers using them as collateral for a loan (or appeals bond). But the agreement is between Trump and DWAC, and DWAC could just waive it. It is not best practices or anything, as a capital markets matter, to waive the lockup an hour after the merger, but I think it is possible. Ordinarily you don’t do it because shareholders will be mad about additional shares flooding the market, but (1) if he just pledges his shares to a bank, they won’t flood the market, and (2) the shareholders are presumably Trump fans and will be happy to help him fund his legal bills. Probably the stock would go up if they gave him a limited waiver for this.
Edit 2: This, by the way, is why folks are so critical of the Tesla board and why Elon’s recent pay package was rescinded by a judge, who determined the board did not act in the best interests of the shareholders by approving that package; rather, they concluded the board was too close to, and too beholden to, Elon to be able to effectively negotiate that package.
Boards are basically the last line of defense when it comes to things like pay packages and so forth, but that doesn’t stop shenanigans from happening, hence shareholder lawsuits, which are basically the final recourse for shareholders to hold boards to account.
I’m not sure they could though. They could probably waive his ability to pledge the stock as collateral, but not sale. Ultimately, the board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders and I’m not sure there’s a conceivable reason they could come up with that’s in the shareholders interest. Power to do it, sure, but they’re going to be defendants in a shareholder derivative suit.
Shorting before the merger wouldn’t have made any sense: the stock price went from around $17.50 to over $50 within the first week of trading and probably won’t come back to earth for a while. Meanwhile borrowing costs, after that initial spike when the stock was at its highest, were astronomical, so it wasn’t economical to do it right after, either.
The real 4D chess would be to get that lockup waived, short the stock now (borrowing costs have since fallen back to earth), sell your shares, then close out the short after the price drops (sure, you run the risk that the SEC goes after you for stock manipulation, but I doubt Trump cares).
Yeah but to make any real money on a short position taken prior to listing, the stock would have to drop well below that $17 price. Will that happen? Maybe. But I personally wouldn’t bank on it. My bet is that pre-listing price will be a bit of a floor since so many retail meme stock types got in on that price pre-merger and won’t want to get out.
oh man, I respectfully disagree. I think they will add more stock further diluting the price and it will crater. that’s why puts are so expensive right now
A while back, I picked up a reprint of an EC comic from the 1950s, before I was born. “Frontline Combat” was on the same level as Batman or Wonder Woman; it wasn’t trying to educate, it was pure entertainment. The issue I read was a Civil War Special. That children’s comic had a biography of Lincoln; a discussion of the blockade to strangle the South’s economy; a quick nod to the physics of skipping a cannonball over water; and enough solid information for an AP history class.
Bugs Bunny cartoons introduced millions of kids to opera and classical music. Rocky and Bullwinkle met Cleopatra and Julius Cesar.
Most parents don’t sit their kids down and talk about world history, unless it applies directly to them. Kids learn passively by absorbing what they are presented with.
Before ‘Star Wars’ the biggest, most lavish movies were historical. You went to see “Lawrence of Arabia” for the action, and got bits of history sprinkled in.
These days, you almost never see anything like that. “Napoleon” didn’t make much of a splash, and “Oppenheimer” isn’t exactly getting the grade school crowd.
You can also add the Right Wing anti-education push, but mostly I blame the entertainment industry. There was a short lived attempt to correct this; Stephen Spielberg made the same arguments I just did, and came up with a show “Hysteria” that tried to be fun and educational.
This is one of those strange terms where “recalling” is somehow the official term for a software update that can be sent over the air and applied remotely.
Not physically recalled
To be fair, when talking about a control system that moves tons of metal feet away from bystanders these sorts of safety critical systems should be given a level of weight greater than that given to Candy Crush.
While may always be improvements to such software, it’s not a trivial matter to get it wrong.
I understand that, but the misuse of the word “recall” is archaic and I’m pretty sure specific to only the auto industry.
Phones don’t get recalled for software updates.
I think it is to mean a mandatory update that fixes a core/safety system, and the wording is some legal thing relating to when such an issue would have to be fixed by a mechanic in a garage. Likely to fit around existing insurance documents and laws, without having to get those reworded.
But “recall” means
to order the return of a person who belongs to an organization or of products made by a company
I’m not disputing that.
I’m saying that “recall” in this case does not mean physically returning the vehicle, contrary to the dictionary definition of the word.
The dictionary definition, which also includes one for remembering information that does not require any physical movement, is not the same thing as a vehicle recall. A vehicle recall is about implementing fixes, which have traditionally required being serviced in a physical location even for software upgrades, but there is no reason to have a new word just because the fix can be made remotely. It isn't like the thing that they are doing is any different than being recalled to a dealership for them to install the software updates.
Do you think phone calls should be renamed for cell phones because they don't use physical land line connections?
Should electric cars be called something other than cars because they run on electricity instead of fossil fuels?
Who cares where the car is when the recall fix is implemented? It is still a vehicle recall, just handled remotely.
A recall is the legally defined process to address a safety issue. From NTSHA’s documentation.
Manufacturers voluntarily initiate many of these recalls, while others are either influenced by NHTSA investigations or ordered by NHTSA via the courts. If a safety defect is discovered, the manufacturer must notify NHTSA, as well as vehicle or equipment owners, dealers, and distributors. The manufacturer is then required to remedy the problem at no charge to the owner. NHTSA is responsible for monitoring the manufacturer’s corrective action to ensure successful completion of the recall campaign.
There was a safety issue and it was addressed by the manufacturer: huzzah!
Even physical mechanical changes don’t usually require the car to go back to the factory, they’re often addressed as part of routine maintenance.
The term may feel misleading, but it exists and is used in a specific context.
It doesn’t feel misleading, it is misleading. We understand that use of the term “recall” in reference to cars happens to include over the air software updates in its legal definition. However many people likely do not. I’d also wager that many people who do know occasionally forget when they first see the headline. So while the use of the word “recall” here is technically correct it leads people to assume that they are physically recalling the cars.
Long ago "drive" meant urging an animal to move forward. And "dialing" a phone number meant entering the "digits" by turning a rotary dial with your digits.
Yeh, but all of those are currently defined by dictionaries in that regard.
A software update delivered over-the-air, with no end user interaction, without having to move the car is not in the dictionary definitions of the word “recall”.
The dictionary definition says “return item to company”
Except these things do require action for a lot of people. Their is a good reason why Tesla was required to send out mail to all effected customers.
This may come as a shock to you, but not all people have their cars connected to the internet. While it varies by network, about 30% of the US by area does not even have cell service, and the parts that do can be unreliable, especially if there is a big garage door between you and the tower. And this is the US, Canada is even more rural.
Some people might have also purposely disconnected their vehicles from the cell network, maybe because of evidence that Tesla employees were making highlight reels of customers from the in car camera footage.
In either of these or more cases, an update requires active work and steps to resolve. Indeed there is a reason Tesla has to provide technicians who can come out to their customers address to apply it free of charge. The same language and laws apply to every other auto manufacturer on our shared roads.
Elder said he and his team were prevented from delivering their aid shipment and forced to turn back that day.
"We spent about eight or nine hours at military checkpoints. In the end, our truck, despite all the approvals, was denied access and returned ... Yes, we will try again. Obviously, we'll try again. But this is consistent with the denials that we and many other agencies have experienced," Elder said.
Israel has previously said that it allows hundreds of trucks carrying aid to enter Gaza daily, and the Israeli government has blamed the U.N. for failing to distribute it.
Sounds like we can't trust the IDF's numbers on aid trucks being let in if they're counting ones they initially let in and then forced to leave at a later checkpoint.
cbsnews.com
Top