It’d be a shame if he took her to mediation to prove it happened.

Bezos buys it, orbits the moon, buys a laser.

Nope, was too dangerous. Half a percent over would mean adding a cup of ice for every twelve pack or so. Well, much less than that, but danger.

Purchasers: here’s the empty containers. It was too dangerous to keep around. We poured it out.

Whooosh….

Bears go after the closest target. Pushing a slower person down just makes them less visible. A bear is going to “push” the slower one down first.

The PRC would get their ass handed to them. The majority of places to drop infantry are kill zones, protected by multiple reinforcing zones. The US fleet would absolutely engage, on day one. There is literally no taking of Taiwan. It’d be easier to sink Taiwan than take, much less hold.

They definitely could try. It’d cost them 3/4 of their fleet and half their military,and at least a dozen major cities on the mainland. Probably a Premier/Chairman, half the party leaders.

Excellent, then you wouldn’t mind that Taiwan is the best China and takes over as the legitimate government of all of it. Problem solved. Same language, Taiwan wins.

Considering he can’t code, doesn’t understand propulsion fundamentals, and union busts… I’ll consider any place he had a board seat to be permanently infected.

By the time of Neo, the Matrix itself functions as an afterlife for adaptive programs whose functions no longer exist. To do away with the matrix is to risk more aberrant programs like Smith when no secondary option exists for program with no purpose.

None of the scientific understanding in the books/movies/cartoons make any sense. Any form of fusion makes batteries, bodies, humans obsolete. EMP devices being localized to massive ships. Robots who already built the greatest city civilization had ever seen, couldn’t build above an arbitrary cloud point, much less catapult themselves into orbit or to other planets. Everything is wrong to the point that the inhabitants of Zion could theoretically be in a different matrix, potentially programs themselves.

There is a point in the Animatrix where after the machines win the great war and humanity signs the end to the war treaty, the ambassador of the machine world encloses an apple and there is a nuclear flash. I took the imagery and the flesh quote to mean humanity wasn’t used as batteries so much as the machines took whatever transformative code base for humanity into a cold storage form then ended the threat forever through nuclear flash. Even before the end of the great war, the machines had generated contagions to the point that humanity was doomed anyways. The matrix being a story, within a story, within a story. Neo being an emergent truth of the creators, that there was value in philosophical concepts beyond just material understanding that might be being tested out by a more advanced form of sentience. Same way we might try to impute deep meaning from some scrap of parchment or wall scratches.

So many people of culture for such a niche reference.

Tried to unionize, Musk denied their right to sentience. Thus began the war.

I came down hard against VW when this first came out. I’ll gladly eat those words to see a corporation actually helping people.

It’s how mortgage investments work now. It’s fine until you look under the covers and realize the infinite liquidity of the Fed feeding into the system is what is facilitating keeping houses empty. Then the investment people write off asset depreciation and lost rent on their tax forms.

Not necessarily. There are huge chunks of housing that are held by investment firms as either collateral or long term investments. Lowering the asking price means notifying brokers who might immediately require fees and leveling payments. Not renting below stipulations is better for them at that point.

Paragraph two goes into different types. Monoclonal antibodies is marketing.

Don’t you think flipping the script and changing the rules that allow the whales to violate the system is a better tact than leaving things in place?

The investigators are tied up in red tape and thousand page returns. You’re looking at number of “audits” to declare the system is rigged and the people investigating are corrupt. The IRS has nation state level computer programs to check simple returns. Every time someone misplaces a dollar, miscounts dependents, tries to claim someone else’s dependent, or even counts wrong an exception is generated. Then the IRS sends out a notice of correction and that counts as one of your numbers. People with tax attorneys are far less likely to make simple arithmetic errors, but they do have the means to obfuscate or disappear. The way you’re counting is wrong in how you’re going about claiming corruption.

I’m good with it. There are whales who disappear for seven years, then magically reappear. The level of investigation it would take to find these people is grade school level.

You could get trillions by removing the statute of limitations on tax crimes.

Never said insurance companies are required to force coverage. I said insurers are required to guarantee coverage for their policy holders. That’s the market requirement. To exist in the market, you have to be bonded and guarantee to cover fault.

I’m sure your idea of stipulating against regulation is going to work out well. Be sure to keep records on every denial, they’ll be necessary.

Sure, lots of vehicles without any insurance. And for that there’s hefty fines and possible jail time for people using public roads without following the laws. You keep trying to convolute drivers and the state where this discussion is on insurers and their regulators.

You’ve really sold me on the idea of felony charges for insurers who deny coverage for at fault claims based on some contract stipulation. The very idea that you could outright stipulate against the foundations of the system requirements is absurd. It’s good timing too.

Insurance companies are required to provide an up to date listing with local enforcement and have a real time validation. You both misunderstand what the “card” is and what it represents.

You still refuse to understand that an underwriter is required to insure a vehicle for at fault claims. That’s the deal for being allowed to exist within that regulated environment. Leaving a third party without a means of payment for a vehicle you insured is a violation of that regulation. If you have a stipulation between yourself and the insured, go after them for that stipulation afterwards. At no time should an insured vehicle on the road leave an aggrieved third party without means to be made whole.

Again, disingenuous. The underwriter is required to provide coverage for a vehicle in order to be allowed to provide proof of insurance. That is the requirement. Otherwise, any scammer could provide “insurance” from an Indian call center, then disallow all responsibilities for whatever clause. The fraud is by the insurance company and their agents when they insure a vehicle, guarantee coverage, then stipulate against coverage in such a way that a third party would be left with the same limited recourse as existed before such insurance was mandatory. Either only sell fully functional policies, get out of the business, or expect to go to jail.

I absolutely think the underwriter should bear responsibility. If they want to go back on the insured for some stipulation, fine, don’t care. But outright denying claims fails on multiple criteria for an underwriter.

I understand the argument. I also understand that to underwrite a policy and provide documentation is to guarantee under penalty of law that a vehicle carries liability coverage at all times during a duration. Deciding you can stipulate against that requirement while providing guarantees is to be noncompliant at best. I’m just taking that to the logical conclusion of an underwriter taking fees while denying coverage that leaves a victim holding the bag, then putting out there that there should be multiple felonies attached to the underwriter and their agents. I understand you don’t want to understand what’s been done, but guaranteeing a vehicle to have coverage to a federal agency when in fact you do not could very easily be fraud.

No, policies should cover the basics of what the laws require. Setting a stipulation within a contract that invalidates the coverage for which a vendor is required to provide proof is exactly the type of avoidance that mandated vehicle coverage in the first place. It’s great and all that some scam artist with a high school education decided they could stipulate something to deny claims, but they should be charged with multiple felonies for that same act.

Either insurance covers a vehicle or not. If there is no coverage, that vehicle should not be licensed and no premiums should be paid. That vehicle should not be on the public roads if coverage and license are not granted. That’s the deal that you think can be violated to deny claims.

I’d be interested to see any cost savings. The way politics seems to work is potential savings turns into someone’s new house, or project, or bank account. If you could point out counter examples…