More like there was concerted effort way before Trump. Tea party movement ring bells anyone still and so on? At the time Trump wasn't at all that much involved in politics and so on. He was still doing The Apprentice and so on.

Trump is just a figure head of way broader movement, not the planner or brains of the thing. He is just riding the wave, that already existed. Though I must admit might he is pretty decent fire and brimstone crowd pleaser and thus has probably driven some of the base to be more energetic and radical compared to situation where someone less "charismatic" was the lead candidate.

I would also add that isn't empty talk like "Well he said it once, non biggie". That statement by POTUS itself drove the national policy other countries. When POTUS says "other nations you are with us or are our enemies", that matters.

That is a signal the reverberates around with "do we dare to anger USA on this one". The Afghan war partisipants list is long and contains some not so obvious participants often doing rather small token participations. Which I think is exactly "Well we have to show we are with USA".

For example here in Finland in the after action report of Finnish participation in Afghanistan tells the reason wasn't building peace, it wasn't even combat experience. It was "coalition and alliance building" aka showing USA "we are with them".

In the after action study one of the interviewed decision makers literally directly quoted:

Yhdysvallat sanoi 9/11 jälkeen: olette joko meidän kanssa tai meitä vastaan.”

United States said after 9/11: You are either with us or against us.

Right above explaining how it was 20 year long very unpopular operation caused losses and achieved nothing in Afghanistan, but hey the Finnish NATO application will go through with flying colors.

The whole time the media blitz was about "Helping and building peace in Afghanistan". When in reality we went in because USA publicly extorted pretty all of west to show colors.

This isn't only in Finland in other European after action reports have shown similar "We went in, because Bush publicly demanded show of loyalty".

Oh wow! In only 6.5 years

Then again look it this way... Once the lining has been built it will serve California for centuries, just as the original built rail corridors have. The rail tech might change, but the cleared out suitably shallow contoured corridor remains. For centuries.

It’s interesting because by strictly following traffic rules you might infact be a danger to others but by driving like humans you’re also breaking the law.

Well the others should also stop breaking the law, then things are safe again. One doesn't solve the illegal murder problem by making murder legal. If someone is danger to someone else by driving legally, then source of problem is other persons behaviour. Since legal rules don't include stuff like "be obnoxious and hindering to others".

The other drivers must drive like expecting possibly the others involved driving by the rules. Leaving enough room, incase the car in front in fact does stop at the stop sign. Since they might have to emergency stop anyway. If one isn't distant enough to leave room for stop sign stopping, one certainly doesn't have the safe distance to anticipate as they should the car in front at any moment having to do emergency stop due to developing sudden situation. One must always leave avoidance distance.

Drive by the speed limit and not little over? It is the speeding over takers fault they are speeding over taker, took a dangerous over take when they shouldn't due to being "annoyed" by someone driving by the speed limit and thus causing a crash.

There is very very few cases where driving by the rules is the cause of danger. Other drivers being fool hardy, emotional idiots is the source of danger. Fault will and should land with the fool hardy idiot.

As NTHSA said with making Tesla remove the "california stop" aka rolling the stop singing without stopping, others breaking the law don't make it legal for you. In fact said arbitrary cultural behavior, which some follow and some don't is a source of danger due to uncertainty it causes.

edit: So in long term the car is safer by following rules, since it induces others to drive legally and predictably. Specially since machines don't use human non verbal hints and so on. Thus the only sensible route for a driving machine, instead of driving human is to strictly follow traffic rules. Since it makes it a predictable player. Unlike with humans other humans have no way to culturally gauge how a "driving machine would behave", if it doesn't behave by the one publicly known precedent it could be expected to behave.... Driving by the rules to the letter. Which does include the simple rule of "if you can you must try to avoid collision, even on having right of way". No amount of "but the rules say", overrules that basic rule in the rules "every driver has obligation to try to avoid collision or minimize collision upon not being able to avoid collision." So there well be no "cyborg car bowling down a pedestrian or other car, because technically the other person was breaking the law. The car had right of way".

Did he really?

Rather is it instead some billionaire would have done it. We had the bad luck of it being Elon Musk instead of someone better.

He put money in Tesla. That is his main contribution. Tesla which kinda had the first mover advantage of being the one well placed EV company via their deals with AC propulsion and Lotus. Both which happened without Elon.

What really made Tesla possible aka the first Tesla roadster possible was Tappering and Eberhard personally flying cross the Atlantic to go personally meet Lotus leadership for Lotus to produce the gliders aka most of the car. The chassis, body, the suspension. The roadster was mostly a Lotus made car in which Tesla dropped electric drive train. Electric drive train, which core technologies were licenses from AC propulsion.

Funnily worlds first big EV company might have been called AC propulsion. They had their Tzero prototype, which is pretty much hand build kit car Tesla Roadster. All of first Eberhard, Tappering and then Musk talked to AC propulsion about them starting serial production of tzero. However it didn't happen since the company leadership adamantly refused. That is why Eberhard and Tappering incorporated Tesla Inc. They needed separate company to start production of tzero style roadster, since AC Propulsion strictly stuck to the field of just electric drivetrain tech. Under which field they then did what they thought their business is, AC propulsion licenses the drivetrain tech to Tesla and then let Tesla take the job and risk of actual automotive production.

Main contribution of Elon was insisting on carbon fiber instead of glass fiber composites. Requiring expensive retooling at Lotus for the Tesla production line thus making making car more expensive and saving negligible amounts of weight.

All the engineers apparently went: We already considered carbon fiber anyway. Carbon Not worth the extra cost of parts for the weight saving. This body can be perfectly well be done with glass fiber composites. Like you are the main stock holder, so it's your money. We do it in carbon fiber, if you insist. Just saying there is no reason to do it engineering wise.

However Elon wanted cool space age carbon fiber body so they did it in carbon fiber. Again at great extra cost for both Tesla and the customers.

Sound familiar? Elon insisting on non practical engineering choice, since he got in its head a obsession to make the thing that way and no otherway. Like removing radars and other sensors even though as leaks have later revealed all the main engineers on the driving systemics said it is stupid idea and leads to unreliable sensorial leading to problems.

Atleast in the camera only case he is trying to save money. I guess that is improvement over the unnecessary exorbitantly expensive carbon body paneling on the Roadster (Roadster is aluminium tub chassis car , the carbon fiber was doing no mechanical work, it was literally just body cladding).

Yeah. Unless he has evidence... Yeah, don't go around spewing that kind of stuff. How about going with "looks like middle-aged man having midlife crisis and currently in the "gym rat" phase of it"... little dig in there, but you know more realistic. Yeah he is little funny with the shirtless sports posing, so throw some shade over it. However it in no way implies cheating on his wife. Don't know if he is, don't know if he isn't, but getting the middle life crisis hobby of "jiu-jitsu" doesn't tell anything about that.

As said I think him getting in shape, sports and posing is way more about just bulk standard mid-life crisis. "Oh I'm getting little old. When did that midsection and belly got so wide. I should start a sports hobby to get in shape and avoid cardiovascular disease". Some people get a motorbike to catch the lost youth. Others become gym rats/sports nuts to try to catch back their lost youth body.

Again which really wouldn't be that interesting except billionaire and also him apparently getting so hooked on it, that he started competing in tournaments.

Doesn't also remove anything from his horrible record of business ethics. He has absolutely horrible business ethics as most of these silicon valley billionaires in the advertising/social media sphere. Comes with the territory. One doesn't start a targeted advertising social media business, if one values the ethics of peoples right to privacy.

Amazon is a retailer, they can choose to sell or not sell whomever’s goods they want to.

Amazon is also platform operator. This is about Amazon being the direct seller on the selling platform operated by this company called Amazon vs third party seller selling Apple products on the platform operated by this company called Amazon.

Meaning stuff like Amazon placing their own direct sell offer higher on results or as said how prominently they featured advertising by their party sellers.

This is the danger of trying to operate both as the retailer and as the platform operator on same market place. Competition authority will very carefully scrutinise ones operating of the market platform on benefit of ones retail sales.

Direct single party retail webshops don't have this problem. Neither do pure marketplace platform, where they just run the marketplace and don't offer any first party product sales.

They could choose to not do third party sellers and be pure first party retailer. However then their selection would be smaller. Since third party sellers cover much of the niches not lucrative enough for amazon itself to cover. Then Amazon wouldn't be the "buy everything" store, which would also hurt their retail business. Since the default move wouldn't be "well lets first look on amazon, they have everything there".

Amazon is trying to have their cake and eat it too. Competition authority is saying "hold on there now, you either eat it or keep it. No cheating and double dipping." If you are to be both market place and retailer, there needs to be firewall between those two divisions and fair dealing with the other retailers on your marketplace.

traditional grocery stores won’t put in any effort to provide it

At least where I live here in Finland, traditional retail chains are very much in the shopping delivery business. Exactly including using their vast retail stores network as their base of deliveries. However again their stores are actual stores.

The dark stores would have had choices. For example don't run a purely dark store. Run it as combined delivery base and retail store. The walk in retail might be minority of the business, but then they could say "no, we also have walk in customers. We aren't a dark store, the city mayor is free to walk in and come buy a bottle of cola from us."

Russia still get to maintain their main embassy at capital Helsinki. Just as Finland still has it's main Moscow embassy.

Not really. Expect in that obviously many of the exact current water resistant phone design can't be used. Since those don't have replaceable battery. However already at this very moment there is smart phones on the market with both replaceable battery and water resistance. Like Samsung Xcover6 pro . Not that it is the only one, but example from the major brands instead of the more niche rugged phone specialist brands. In fact in my experience in the rugged phone market replaceable battery is quite common (and thus apparently desired by customers) feature. I assume on the rugged phone user segment liking the ruggedness of "I can continue the lifespan with new battery" and even "Well I'm going to middle of no where wilderness, spare battery might not be stupid idea".

In opposite to the hurdurhurdur can't make water and dust resistant phone with battery covers. Yes we can. We figured this out by early 2000's. Touch screens on the other side of the phone taking place from the old numeric T9 pad doesn't change the design fundamentals of the back of the chassis. Rigid enough cover plate with rigid enough pressure applying latching combined with rubber seal designed and molded to seal the desired areas will do the job exactly 2027 as well as those did in 2002.

As said all it takes is a redesign job with the battery swapping idea being kept in mind from start on the chassis design. Maybe it means couple mill thicker phones, since the phone isn't a single glued together slab from front display glass to the back cover glass, so it isn't rigid by being single monolith resign block essentially. However as far as the massively bulky thick rugged phones, all phones aren't headed there. That is about impact resistance instead of water or dust resistance. Thick layers of metal and rubber both to withstand and to soften impact.

No, voice calls including POTS calls will stay. This would be additional. For second point this is a very big may or if. They are pretty much just studying the possibility, maybe doing a pilot project at some point. Any showstoppers or big obstacles show up, this would abandoned quickly.

Far more important and already implemented is reporting of the callers mobile phones locations via an official emergency call app. Also emergency center can get the cell network triangulation location, but often in rural Finland it might end up being "anywhere on this towers coverage area". Amounting to anywhere on this tens of square kilometers circle. So say somewhere in vinicity of this village, maybe.

The call app can get direct phone GPS receiver access and thus down to meters location.

Well firstly case ruling is more thumbs up emoji does count in this very specific case. It isn't universal ruling, but very specific ruling tied to the circumstances of the case regarding existing business relationship, previous communication about the contract, the actual sending of contract and then being asked to confirm he is happy with the actual final contract and confirms it. Process that had happened many times before regarding various produce delivery contracts. Only this time he messaged back thumbs up instead of writing into the chat "Yeah, I agree", "that contract is okay" or so on.

They tried to argue, no i just thumbed up on "I received the file". But court said, you were specifically asked to a confirm contract that you had discussed in positive and willing enter into way and then displayed positive signal. Reasonable person could assume you meant "Yes, I confirm".

So no not every thumbs up is contract agreement. Someone sends you out of the blue a contract and you message back thumbs up, it isn't contract agreement. context matters.

I guess the lesson is, don't adapt habit of confirming contracts in informal ways, since then your informal communication can be interpreted as contractual agreement. Since you have precedence of having previously entered and honored contracts agreed on similarly non-formal ways.

Like... Take the contract image, print it, sign it, scan it back and then send it back with "Yes I agree, here is the signed contract" or "I always digitally sign my agreements to digitally sent contracts". Then one can argue I never just thumb up to contract and the other party knows it. I always previously digitally signed them, why would it be reasonable for them to accept lesser signal of agreement. I specifically told them in previous conversation I always formally digital signing the contract. Whether they verify the digital signature algorhitmically or not, I always send it back formally signed. It is my way and behaviour to avoid ambiguity.