Which led to insurers to purchase PBMs, hospitals, and doctor groups. The law of unintended consequences.
Landlords will get around this by raising other fees but not calling them rent, like pest control, garbage pickup, coffee room supplies, pets...landlords could do this all day long.
> In a statement, a Volvo Cars USA spokesperson added the decision was made “to limit the company’s supply chain risk exposure, and it is a direct result of Luminar’s failure to meet its contractual obligations to Volvo Cars.”
>While market conditions can shift quickly, when businesses charge a single, static price for their product, they’re missing out on two opportunities: to serve customers who would only pay less, and to charge more to the customers who are willing to pay more. These missed opportunities have led some businesses to implement dynamic pricing practices.
Right, so a sensible society would tax capital gains more than labor, but since we didn't do that, the lion's share went to the already wealthy. For no reason other than being wealthy.
Appliance manufacturers are starting to lock features behind an app/connectivity. Bosch and I believe LG are putting certain wash cycles app only. The in app only functionality will just get more intrusive until morale improves.
Number of aircraft don’t seem to contribute to whether or not it’s classified as “hostilities”, much less “invasion”. Is this ridiculous ? Certainly. But it’s fairly par for the course in terms of politically complex issues in the USA.
The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 sets a 60-day limit for U.S. forces in hostilities without a formal declaration of war or congressional authorization, allowing for a potential 30-day extension for withdrawal, totaling 90 days, after which the President must remove troops.
Airstrikes on Libya (2011): Obama administration argued they did not need Congressional authorization because the operations did not constitute "hostilities" as defined by the War Powers Resolution. Therefore, the Obama administration argued, the 60-day clock never started.
The bombings involved 26,500 sorties over eight months, including 7,000 bombing sorties targeting Gaddafi's forces.
Also, on-the-day commentary about "regime change" was very much premature. A "regime" is not a single person, it is a ruling group, a system (1). The existing regime in Venezuela is still very much in place. It is undergoing change for sure, even having a crisis (2). But as this implies, it has not yet been swapped out for something else.
I don't follow. What are you trying to say? Your question is not relevant to the proposition that the existing regime in Venezuela is still very much in place. I don't know how to say this more clearly than "a regime is not a person (source, the dictionary)".
"Was this attempted regime change?" and "Was the regime change successful?" are two different questions. Given the facts, it's hard to deny that the purpose of this operation was explicitly regime change.
> "Was this attempted regime change?" and "Was the regime change successful?" are two different questions.
What I said was "on-the-day commentary about "regime change" was very much premature".
My apologies, for the avoidance of any doubt I should have said "on-the-day commentary about "regime change" having already occurred successfully was very much premature".
Does "The existing regime in Venezuela is still very much in place" not emphasise that meaning?
Is that clearer to you? I didn't think it needed to be added, but people can be creative with misreadings. This seems like a issue at your end.
Dictionary defition is "when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country".
They went in and out. They used force to enter, but they did not took control of another country. The government and regime is basically intact, maybe with some bruised ego assuming existing players did not tacitly allowed this to happen to promote themselves.
Functionally, the situation is very similar to the situation from before the event, except there was some display of force and it was made clear someone inside is cooperating with usa.
Does this mean that any time an invasion fails it retroactively doesn't count? For example, the Bay of Pigs event universally known as the "Bay of Pigs invasion" was not an invasion because the US never took control of any territory?
The invaders took and held some territory near the Bay of Pigs for about three days, and they were planning to stay a lot longer if the fighting had gone their way. Whereas for a raid, a withdrawal is also planned in case of mission success.
Do you mean that if the US Marine Corps takes some foreign territory by force, it's not an invasion, because there is no army involved in the operation?
Vague everyday language is unsuitable for contracts. When there are multiple reasonable interpretations, it's impossible to know what has been agreed. It's better to be pedantic and use precise language and narrow technical definitions of words.
In some languages and situations, "army" is a general term for the military or for a military force. In other languages and situations, it refers specifically to ground forces. Americans are usually in the latter camp, especially if they have a connection to the military.
I meant that the person writing the contract must be a pedant. Vague everyday language can only lead to bad things, when someone inevitably interprets in a different way.
In this particular case, the bets were clearly about military operations with the intention to take control of Venezuelan territory. This is the established meaning of "invasion", in contexts where people care about distinguishing between different types of military operations. But because people could plausibly interpret the word in a different way, the rules did not use words "invade" or "invasion" at all.
What Trump means is that he has kicked the Venezuela government in the balls in order to coerce them.
Trump is a mob boss. He considers himself "in charge" of them now because he has clearly dominated them, expects them to comply with his future demands, and will continue to use force against them in the future if they don't do what he wants.
Or it means Trump saying what Trump always says, whilst also being extremely clear that he's negotiating with Venezuela's VP, who is busy asserting equally implausibly that Maduro is the country's only president to her own audience of people that believe whatever the government says.
Sounds like the IIHS which has been imposing 'mandates' on car manufacturers with little proof that these mandates are effective. These mandates are costing us all millions in upfront and insurance rates but I never see any evidence that they are worth the cost they impose. Not opposed to the mandates specifically just the lack of cost benefit analysis.
Can you be more specific about these “mandates” you take issue with?
IIHS doesn’t have any mandate power over manufacturers (they are not a regulatory body) but they do align with insurance company interests, whose goals are to pay out less for damages from vehicle incidents, and therefore IIHS logically would theoretically be focused on actuarial data-driven analysis. If you have specific examples of where this has not been the case, I’d love to learn more.
Here are some where IIHS punishes cars that don't meet its features with dubious evidence of improving safety...
Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) with Pedestrian Detection: IIHS rates vehicles on forward collision avoidance, including pedestrian scenarios, but systems often underperform in real-world conditions like nighttime or with larger vehicles (e.g., trucks or motorcycles). Studies show virtually no crash reduction at night, and features can create false alerts, weather-related failures, or a false sense of security, potentially dulling driver awareness without clear evidence of broad effectiveness at higher speeds.
Roof Strength Test: Vehicles must withstand a force equivalent to a certain multiple of their weight (e.g., 4x for a "good" rating) to simulate rollover protection. Critics, including automotive industry analyses, argue there's no statistically reliable evidence that increasing roof strength beyond basic levels (e.g., from 2.5 to 3.5 strength-to-weight ratio) reduces injury risk, with claims relying on unsupported extrapolations from low-strength data and anomalous results.
Updated Side Impact Test (Introduced 2021): This tougher test uses a heavier, faster-moving barrier (4,200 lbs at 37 mph) to mimic modern SUV strikes. It's criticized for disadvantaging smaller vehicles unfairly, incorporating misleading variables (e.g., tire grip affecting results), and prioritizing structural deformation over occupant outcomes, potentially leading to "poor" ratings despite good dummy readings. Detractors view it as more marketing-driven than reflective of common real-world crashes, with little evidence that the changes proportionally save lives beyond the original test.
Put most of your apps on the spare phone, only put apps needed to leave the house on your primary phone. This helps with battery life, storage, and privacy.
reply