Or perhaps listing 3 different positions and claiming someone is between them is confusing.....

Given they were directly responding to a quote of the confusing statement, perhaps they were not remarking on the actual position, but on the confusing nature of the description ?

If their parting message is to be believed it's because they are the last bastion of sanity.

Can't link to the original because they added a script that ddos'd an instance they don't like...you know...like a well adjusted saviour would do.

Get them some nix

The mandate says nothing about cameras specifically.

I thought it did as well but it only specifies this :

Driver drowsiness and attention warning and advanced driver distraction warning systems shall be designed in such a way that those systems do not continuously record nor retain any data other than what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed within the closed-loop system. Furthermore, those data shall not be accessible or made available to third parties at any time and shall be immediately deleted after processing. Those systems shall also be designed to avoid overlap and shall not prompt the driver separately and concurrently or in a confusing manner where one action triggers both systems.

Don't get me wrong, manufacturers are going to have a fucking field day with all of the shit they'll try and get in under this banner of "safety" and they will almost certainly work their monetisation shenanigans in around this.

It might seem like that wording prohibits data collection, but it doesn't cover all the bases a team of well paid lawyers would be able to come up with. Or they could just do what they normally do and just ignore the "no data collection" part and pay the ~~cost of doing business tax~~ fine and rake in multiples of that fine in profits.

My point is , it doesn't specify cameras, so theoretically a company could come up with a non-face-scanning way of doing this and use that instead.

will they ?....fuck no...but they could if they wanted to.

Which is arguably worse.

edit : A note to say that I'm not arguing against the safety aspects of this , they might be fully valid, i'm arguing that it'll be abused for profit in any way the companies think will give them a positive ROI.

uBlock created an entirely different implementation of their extension to work around as much of the bullshit lockdown that MV3 implements.

Adguard (and ublock origin "lite") work exactly as much(or little) as google thinks it can get away with right now.

MV2 VS MV3 is much more of a change than just the stuff relating to ad blockers, but that doesn't detract from the fact that a company that makes a large proportion of their revenue through advertising was in full control of the specifications for the "new" MV.

Crazy ape comment aside (i'd put it closer to apes with delusions of grandeur but that's just me), not shooting guns and allowing hunting aren't mutually exclusive.

Especially given all the hunting that happened pre-gun.

I don't know if it's on purpose but your answer seems to be ignoring a lot of the realities of how the things you are proposing would work (or not work, as the case may be).

IKR, fuck those people with disabilities for inconveniencing you.

How dare they use a physical impairment as an excuse to not do things to your satisfaction.

Selfish Is what they are.

in case it wasnt abundantly clear, that was sarcasm.

That's the standard , "we can't track you on a VPN" error as well fwiw.

Taxonomy.

• A cat is [animal]
• A dog is an [animal]

The nazi's did such a good job of distinguishing themselves they created their own (colloquial) taxonomic branch.

So [nazi] could be considered a parent grouping of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and also potentially a parent grouping for the republicans.

I think they key here is separating the nazi party from the [nazi] category

As you pointed out all [nazi]'s are [fascist]'s but not all [fascist]'s are [nazi]'s

• National Socialist German Workers' Party were [nazi]'s
• The American Republican Party are subjectively showing enough similarities (both in type and progression) that they get the provisional label of [nazi] as it's the closest existing definition.

Might turn out that they don't quite fall in the same branch, might turn out they do. Until then [nazi] is an easy shortcut for describing the types of behaviour displayed.

Even if they were just a direct descendent ( taxonomically ) rather than a sibling of the original nazi party there would still be an argument to claim they were nazi's

Like :

• animal -> mammal -> cat
• nazi -> nazi party -> republican

Come back in a few years and you'll probably get your definitive answer either way.

You don't have to agree with any of that of course, but it does demonstrate how someone might have an opposing opinion to your own.

At this point, surely its just easier to say he deported 700k people than to actually do it, his supporters can't possibly care about fact checking his statements so why bother making them factual.

Reason is fine, doesn't mean everyone has to agree.

I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.

Let's try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.

"I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are."

A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.

If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn't be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.

The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.

The whole point of having a women's competition is to separate "men" from "women", if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we'd be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.

You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop "women" from competing in "men's" competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.

it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition.

Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase

"it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition."

This is not a good argument.

As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.