It would have to be a unicorn position to even begin to consider that.

Just do it. If it’s the law, and it’s the proper action, it shouldn’t be discussion.

If it’s discussion, it’s not the proper action.

Pick your lane

They’re great at multiple choice when they’ve seen the test versions

10 years in?

The FBI can’t stop the calls. The managers of those facilities have a duty to clear out for safety.

The FBI can chase the calls, after the fact. I’m sure we will be hearing of court cases and arrests in the coming months, but that work is starting now

Voting, and trump.

From above:

Fact remains, not voting is basically is half a vote for Trump, and Trump is going to be MUCH worse for the citizens of Gaza.

Biden isnt running dude. I’m not stanning for Biden.

Did you not make it to the end of my comment?

I went from abstract concepts that can inform what we think will happen, to direct examples from the middle east, including his own speech about gazans themselves.

We have no indication that trump would deviate from current stance on supporting Israeli or Saudi objectives, including with funding. He did that while he is in office, so funding is a moot point.

Though Afghanistan certainly turned into a mess, I think we should be happy we left. The issues for me on that relate to supporters/translators that we should have gotten out. But that’s the cold nature of the MIC and certainly wouldn’t be any different if trump had won. You think trump would care about some “nobody” who got left behind? Obviously not, he’s described American soldiers who die or are captured as losers, so another moot point in my book.

None, it’s an abstract to highlight what was (during the trump presidency) and what is (the trump judicial appointment consequences).

To be closer to Gaza, we can look at the koshoggi assassination inaction, the soleimani assassination, and the infamous “Muslim ban” to gain contextual basis for trump’s expected stance on anything Gaza related.

There’s lots of rambling talk by trump on the middle east, but as example related to my list, this article describes his opinion of gazans pretty well. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/17/trump-muslim-ban-gaza-refugees

It is in so much as anyone can look at what trump did in his first term, and what the consequences of that term have been. Such as roe

Ok, but if you do ass last, you’re still just getting ass on face the next day.

It’s assface all the way down

Generally top to bottom, because otherwise drips from above will rewet areas you tried to dry

Yes agree. It’s just that in some shape or form, western countries have been hunting terrorists and accepting (an amount) of collateral damage, for decades. It’s seen as “warfare”. I think we can assume Israel, in this case, thinks it’s aligned with global norms with the beeper method.

I think it’s a whole lot grayer than that

The point is half the planet “accepts” drone strikes of terrorists, on the justification that those terrorists are “conducting war” where ever they are.

Note I am not holding this opinion, I’m describing it.

I would assume Israel is riding along the same idea.

Again, not my idea.

Right. If the company keeps their money, they have money, for money things. Like giving the staff money, to make others products for money.

If they stack all their money, shove it up a lawyer’s ass, and send them waddling in the Nintendo front door, they apparently have bravery, but, alas, no money.

It would be poor leadership to “go into the ground”.

Hmm it is good to highlight if the company can remotely disable the vehicle.

That means they could also remotely change the driving characteristics, as long as it had a data connection. Like, disabling the brakes.

This dude is shit and musk is shit but this is a universal worry for web connected vehicles.

If I recall correctly such tampering was suspected to even be involved in a journalist’s death way back in 2013. However this is speculation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)

Right and their current assessment (from their legal team) clearly is that they have a case to defend themselves.

Yuzu, based on their actions, determined they didn’t.

Edit as such, spending the money would have been just burning it.

It’s not bravery

The claims are very different. I’m not moving the goalposts here, it’s critical to the situation and was always available information.

What’s millions to Nintendo? Yuzu’s a business at it’s core. they are designed to make money

Lol this is hilarious. “Coward”. Have you ever looked down the barrel of an enterprise legal team, and seen just the opening bill to defend team? I haven’t, but I’m aware that it is a huge and expensive endeavor and “bravery” has nothing to do with it.