They usually advise you not to get out of your car for the exact reason they advise you not to get off the train.

I’m not sure what’s exclusive to trains about breaking down in the middle of nowhere. It’s not exactly trivial to get a replacement car either, nor is repair somehow instant.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s way less one sided than you’re trying to convey. My car once broke down on the freeway in a city. I had to wait more than an hour for a tow and then walk home, which took two hours. Had to get random coworkers or friends to take me to work while my car was repaired over the next two weeks.

Oh, and traffic jams are routine for cars.

Nothing is gained by pretending there’s no downsides to any mode of transportation. They all have them. In aggregate though, most people would be better off if we had more available than just “car”.

It seems like you’re arguing that a better way of doing things is hard, therefore not worth doing, or that a century ago was the cutoff for deciding how we do transportation.

The way our stuff is laid out makes it difficult to live without a car. That doesn’t make the car a necessity in the abstract when that layout and design is often the direct product of designing around cars in the first place. It makes the car a necessity in the specific system we have for many people.
“We can’t do things differently because then it’s harder to do things exactly the same” is a weak argument.

Spoken like an upper middle class person

Are you actually using your perception of someone else’s economic class as an argument? When you’re arguing in defense of car based suburban sprawl and buying groceries by the carload?

I feel like that’s the question, not if it was used as a binary flag.

Consumers want to know, so it’s probably a good idea to tell them.

But there’s a gradient. AI generated art assets aren’t the same as AI generated concept art, which isn’t the same as AI generated code, which isn’t the same as AI code completion. If you include the AI search results everyone is adding you’d be hard pressed to find something that didn’t use AI in a sense now.

What I care about is if your stuff is some generated slop code that will crash mid game and no one will ever be able to fix it. That any art that’s supposed to catch my eye has human intention behind it, and not just random generation.
I don’t want any AI that people feel the need to hide.
I should probably care more about filler assets, but I don’t really. If it’s the same to me if the creator handmade their grass texture or found a random one online, I’m kinda indifferent about if it’s AI.

Honestly, if you’re tom hanks kid you might just do it because it’s funny.

I not sure how my logic is wrong when you then described exactly what I said.

We both understand how objects move. It’s a semantics question, not kinematics.
“Caught up” implies moving fast enough to close the distance in a persuit like fashion, to me at least.

It’s not catching up with someone if you take a shortcut and wait for them to arrive.

You don’t actually need to be ahead of them on the horizontal plane. The plane just needs to be able to cover the distance the bullet travels as it slows from drag before the bullet falls to the intercept point.

I doesn’t seem like catching up to me because catching up implies speed was increased to intercept, not distances were different followed by intercept.

If I fire a gun nearly perfectly straight up, run forward 10 feet and catch the bullet in my shoulder it wouldn’t feel right to say that I fired, ran fast enough to catch up to my bullet and shot myself.

You fire a bullet and it accelerates downward at 9.8m/s2 until it gets to some terminal velocity. It moves forward at some velocity with a braking acceleration that’s non-linear and gross. Result is a downward motion in a basically parabolic arc.
The plane, however, is accelerating downward faster than the bullet because of thrust, and also accelerating forward.
By the time drag has essentially stopped the bullet the plane is underneath it.

When phrased as “caught up” it makes it sound like the plane went as fast as the bullet, when the plane had a top speed of mach 1 and the bullet ~mach 3. They just took different paths.

• nice
• so it didn’t do much “outrun” the bullets, but moved under them as they fell? Still funny and impressive either way.
• “survived with a broken leg and multiple broken vertebrae” - okay, so maybe “funny” in a different way.

Modern cars bend and flex during a crash, and they do it in such a way to keep occupants safer. Bench seats can’t do that as well. They also don’t work as well with modern air bags and seatbelts, and they often lack headrests.
Without a headrest a relatively low speed impact basically snaps your neck and whips your head into the dashboard.

You want your seat to basically hug you and lock you into place. There’s a reason racecar seats look like they do.

100%! I meant my statement as building on yours, not contradicting. :)

Any time you talk about hormones you have to couch everything in a thick layer of “usually”, “often”, and “tend”. Biology varies a lot, and hormones vary more than most of the stuff.

Testosterone is literally a steroid. It’s sort of a reductive statement but you don’t really think about it often.
It basically acts as a multiplier for the “grow muscle” signals your body can produce.
Men and women can easily have the same outcomes for muscle mass and calorie requirements, but men might not have to work as hard to get there owing to the higher testosterone multiplier on average.

I’ve also heard that it makes your skin act weird. Several trans people I’ve talked to have all mentioned that getting their hormones managed made their skin care routine either way easier or harder in a sort of “holy shit” way.

Hopefully they never even knew. Just assumed the catch would come until it suddenly didn’t and they never noticed.

Extramarital affairs are bad, but they’re not the same as punishing someone for a joke you don’t appreciate. And not responding to a text with a joke you didn’t find funny is only dubiously that.
Infidelity can be abusive if used as a tool of power, control, or harm. Not all hurtful or disrespectful acts are intrinsically abusive.

I take it you weren’t paying much attention during the whole thing?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/11/why-tiger-s-not-talking-about-his-accident.html

Tldr: initial reports indicated that she hit his car and attacked him with a golf club before the crash. Police stated alcohol didn’t play a role in the crash. He denied any claims of domestic violence and says she smashed both of his back windows to help him out of the car.

That’s certainly what I said isn’t it?

Do you have any reason to believe he’s the emotionally abusive type of asshole?

Doing something wrong doesn’t mean everything they do is wrong.

Hell, we have more evidence for him being the victim of abuse than the perpetrator.

Nope, seems a bit wrong to me. I just don’t see that behavior in this interchange.

No one has alleged he’s that type of asshole, so I see no reason to assume he is. Not every period of silence is the “silent treatment”, and responding after someone apologized isn’t the same as not responding until they apologized.

Of the things to get upset about with tiger woods, this communication thing is an odd one.
Someone makes a joke. You chuckle and go back to what you were doing, or you don’t chuckle and still go back to what you were doing. They send another message that makes you realize they expected a response and took your lack of response the wrong way, so you reply telling them you knew they were joking.

Not every message needs a reply, to say nothing of an immediate one. How would you have had him reply?

Do you reply to every message immediately?

At my local store they seem to comfortably replace 1 cashier with four quick self checkouts, and 3-4 with 2 rows of 6-8.

People dislike them, but it gets a little silly when they insist they have lower throughput too.

I believe the distinction is usually criminal vs non criminal charges usually. Most criminal things require you to have intended to do the bad thing. That doesn’t mean that you intended the outcome, just the act that caused it.
If you intentionally kill someone: murder. If you intentionally attack someone and they die: a lesser type of murder. If you deliberately decide to not maintain some tall thing and it falls and kills someone: negligent manslaughter.
If you’re on a construction site using a nail gun and you follow your training and check what’s behind stuff and put up rope to keep people out of where you can’t see and a nail misses a stud and hits someone killing them: tragic accident. You didn’t intentionally do anything wrong.

For civil things they can often just argue that you caused harm, so you’re responsible for some portion of it. That usually doesn’t apply to retail theft because “left with paper towel unpaid, we stopped them and took back the paper towel” doesn’t actually have any harm. There’s nothing to fix.

While there’s definitely dick baggery in retail theft prevention and store security, I have my doubts that the people complaining here about it at the self checkout are actually the victims of it.

Yup, that’s the precedent bit I mentioned. They’re both valid ways of deciding ambiguity (a judge decides in this situation and other judges aren’t obligated to decide the same way, or lawyers debate the ambiguity, a jury decides, and courts strive for consistency), but they’re fundamentally different and slightly bewildering to people from the other model.

Purely an answer to the question "I mean, how different could they really be?”: fundamentally different in an almost unrecognizable way.

I don’t know how the German appeals system works, but there is a lot of room for difference.

A particular reading spree once caused me to learn that the UK, a modern civilized country, didn’t have what we would call a supreme court until 2009.
Their laws aren’t codified. We have a big book o’ laws, and we pass bills that modify the book. If it’s not in the book it’s not a law. They pass bills that are the laws. This sounds really similar until you consider that “the law” is a collection of every act of parliament going back nearly a thousand years, many of which cancel out others. Oh, and that extends to the concept of a “constitution”.

Some quick searching shows that Germany uses a fundamentally different legal model that views our big book o’ laws as unstructured because courts have a binding say in interpretation of the law. It seems that this regional court can be appealed, and also that their courts don’t use precedent like ours do, so an appeal is more like a second opinion than an escalation.
Judges are less referee and more investigator, so you can claim that the judge made a mistake with their decision, which is appeal.