bostonbananarama

Honestly, everything you have said is dishonest and/or disingenuous. The idea that the price of the vehicle is going to be reduced by 90% as a result of subsidies and innovation is both stupid and dishonest. You should also look up the definition of authoritarian.

They responded

You're saying "they", but it's you. And no you didn't, repeating what you said before isn't addressing the issues.

Adressed twice.

Never addressed at all, you pivoted to the oil industry. You didn't address the subsidies from China or the unfair trade practices.

America will not subsidize to that level, if they could, and no amount of innovation is going to combat subsidization or the unfair trade practices.

According to a Bloomberg article, China will sell EVs at under $10,000, undercutting the price of the average American EV by $50,000. Are you seriously arguing that "investment to lower cost" will reduce the cost by 85-90%? That's simply a ludicrous assertion.

You think US products won't have spyware?

I don't think that collecting anonymized usage data, is the same as unlimited spying going back to an authoritarian government. So no, absolutely nothing comparable.

Americans get cheaper EVs...

For a few years, until the American automakers go bankrupt, as you said, then the Chinese automakers increase prices 10x.

...and the legacy auto industry gets taught a valuable lesson as companies who refused to modernize go bankrupt.

What a valuable lesson, get subsidized by an authoritarian government so that you can offer vehicles below cost. Also be sure to add spyware for the aforementioned authoritarian government.

Do you even understand what below cost means? No amount of modernization will counteract it.

China is subsidizing EV production and selling cars below cost. Allowing them to be sold in the US would kill the domestic EV market. How is that better for Americans?

They may not know step 3, but they know that step 4 is PROFIT!

Have they found a way to make the remote more slippery?

Being a passerby and actively engaging with the incident is way more than enough cause to identify and talk to them.

Poisoning the well a bit by saying actively engaging. Sounds like they are passively watching.

That warrant should absolutely be granted.

Thoroughly disagree.

It's very different than geofencing an entire area. It's specific...

Ok.

and directly connected to the crime, whether they committed it or not.

Not so much, and they already, presumably have the video.

That said, that person is also absolutely a suspect and should be looked at at minimum at surface level.

Other than mere location, what reason do you have to suspect the person? You can look, sure, but I don't see grounds for a warrant.

Yeah, that's probably worded better.

Assuming all they had was a live stream of police responding, and that it didn't start before police arrived, which would demonstrate prior knowledge, I don't see probable cause. It's much more likely that a passer-by recorded it.

Neither of these is reasonable.

1. There certainly are situations where this could be reasonable; however, when your parameters return 30,000 people it's not nearly tailored enough.

2. To get a warrant you need probable cause that a person committed a crime, I don't see how a live stream could meet that burden unless it starts prior to the arrival of the police.

These are both abuses by law enforcement, or more clearly, a path that allows their job to be easier by infringing on people's rights.

Imagine complaining to a social media platform because you're not allowed to be shitty to someone else.

I especially liked that the Check on Amazon button for a $1,400 New 65" monitor links to a Used 27" monitor for $2,200.