ArbitraryValue

I meant that I would be paying extra for it as opposed to a hypothetical car manufactured without the requirement. So it would be like having my taxes raised to pay for providing me something I didn't want.

Maybe this makes me sound like a jerk, but my thinking in that regard was "I don't have children and rarely drive near other people's loose children. Why should I pay for hardware I don't need?"

I deliberately sought out a car without that stuff when I had to buy a new(er) car recently. It's usually quite annoying - the worst was a rental car that had an alarm buzz whenever I activated my turn signal while there was another car anywhere near my blind spot.

IMO the only technological improvement from the last decade and a half that's worth having is a backup camera, and that's only because I must shamefully confess to being terrible at parallel parking without one despite having years of practice. (I was tempted to buy a Miata since they still have real dials, but ultimately I did settle for a car with a digital display instead of an instrument panel.)

I have in mind the people I've worked with - I would have known where they were from even if they were lighter-skinned.

Is the portrayal in non-Indian films bias or just a consequence of immigration patterns? The Indian immigrants that I've met in the USA have usually been relatively dark-skinned.

They can't help because they don't have plot armor if it isn't their movie. I mean, look at Multiverse of Madness...

A business that passed 100% of the tariffs on to consumers via higher prices could still be worse off after getting a refund than it would have been if there never had been tariffs, if demand is elastic enough, so I'm not sure even that sort of data could resolve the question of who deserves what.

I'm not sure what other system is even conceivably possible in the general case. There's no straightforward universal relationship between tariffs paid by businesses and prices paid by the customers of those businesses.

Other former staff members were reassigned to Alphabet's drug-discovery company Isomorphic Labs, which is a DeepMind spin-off.

They're still actively working on this area of research.

It's more reasonable than the headline makes it sound. The commissioner pointed out that he's not in charge of the decision to use Flock cameras and told the group of people who wanted to express their opposition to him anyway to pick one representative who would do so.

I've been to meetings where people repeatedly express the same negative opinion of a policy to someone with no control over that policy and I guess that's what the commissioner wanted to avoid.

This is what international law has to say about incendiary weapons:

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

This treeline is clearly not located within a concentration of civilians and it is concealing (or plausibly believed to be concealing) enemy combatants and therefore the use of incendiary weapons is unambiguously legal.