tmyakal

I drove a rental that had collision detection in it. Three or four times, it suddenly slammed on the brakes for no discernable reason, and with no regard to how close/fast traffic behind me was moving. I had to pull off, download the manual, and figure out how to turn it off before the car killed me.

One of the most important things in safely operating a vehicle is using gradual, predictable movements. My car braking without my input makes predictable movement impossible.

Her wasn't a warning message about the dangers of AI. It was Spike Jonze reflecting on the slow dissolution of his marriage, coming to terms with the idea that he had taken his wife for granted, an always-available thing that existed to validate his feelings, rather than a whole person who was growing and changing beyond him.

Anyone who hasn't done so should try watching Lost in Translation and Her back-to-back. They both star Scarlett Johansson as a thinly-veiled stand-in for Sofia Coppola as each filmmaker examines how their relationships impact their self-image and ambition. Together, they form such a detailed and affecting picture of two sensitive people who just can't connect. It's like (other ScarJo movie) A Marriage Story, but more nuanced and capable of occasional levity.

While I mostly agree with you, it is worth noting that vehicles can (and often do) have passengers accompanying a driver. They would be free to mess around on their phones when the alert goes out.

My wife and I routinely play FromSoft games together. Just find a girl with the same interests as you; it's not hard.

There's a chain of gas stations near me that has a payphone and a map right next to the front door of every shop, just in case someone is having a real bad day.

I've discussed compensation with a couple of coworkers at my current job, and my big takeaway is that they're all really bad a negotiating and self-advocating. I've got coworkers in the same responsibility band doing a much better job than I am and genuinely making ~20% less than me. Because they never counter-offered when they got hired or promoted, just accepted the first number they saw.

I love your confidence, but people have been charged with both criminal mischief and disturbing the peace for much less flagrant actions in the past. Given the nature of the crime, either charge is conceivably applicable. But that's hardly relevant, because this gentleman literally climbed the building; he wasn't standing on a public sidewalk in view of a hospital.

I'm almost 40, and I only know one person who bought their house without direct and significant help from their parents. And that person only managed because they married an older doctor who could afford to buy a foreclosure when prices crashed in '08.

This happened in Wales, so it would be real weird to get a payout in dollars.

But if this did happen in America, almost every charge OP listed would be valid, and this guy would have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting half a million for being arrested.

Currently only 5% of arrests go to trial. Most are resolved in plea deals, which is what almost any lawyer or public defender would tell this guy to angle for. Better to pay a fine and do some community service than pay more to a lawyer for a worse outcome in front of a jury.

And to be clear, if this guy did play the longshot and try to get a trial, it'd be very difficult to win. The prosecutor would need to convince a jury that scaring the shit out of sick people is a bad thing. The defense is what? That it's not that bad? Or that this guy mixed up his candystriper outfit with his black robe, whoopsie? I don't think Atticus Finch himself could turn that jury.

The American legal system is already heavily stacked to crush innocent people. Imagining that there's some sort of Uno Reverse card for someone maliciously intimidating sick people is delusional.

I feel good tonight. I finally got something I always wanted and that's important. It really is. I finally got some hostages. And I'm gonna blow 'em up at midnight! Unless, of course, I get my three demands: A hundred thousand in cash; getaway car; and I want the letter M stricken from the English language. See, you have to make one crazy demand, that way, if you get caught, you can plead insanity. ... Ha! Getaway car.

Steve gives the best crime advice.

I'm not saying people can't think it's cute. Parents dress their kids up as all sorts of shit because they think it's cute. I'm saying that dressing your kid up is not objectively good parenting. That kid didn't buy those outfits. The parents made them dress up. Maybe the kid wanted to and was excited about it, maybe not. But nothing about this image is inherently "doing parenting right."

Take away that text and I cease having an opinion on this photo, but the comments piling on that this is what parenting should look like without context or explanation are reinforcing the idea that children are dolls to be dressed and shown off like toys. Denying children autonomy because you want a cute Christmas card isn't necessarily a good thing.

just that in this one moment, they did something good for their kid

We don't even know that. For all we know, the kid hates Pokemon but the parents thought their costume idea was too cute to skip. To your point, this photo shows exactly what the viewer projects into it, and that is not necessarily good parenting.

(Also, that's not how most photos exist. Context is supremely important to most photography, because otherwise that photo of Thích Quảng Đức is just an album cover that goes hard.)