I would also add at this point, I’d be hard pressed to say there are going to be massive changes in the price you’d get. A phone tends to decline in value the most for the first few years it’s been released, sort of like how new cars depreciate the fastest in its first three years. So I suppose to answer your question: yes you’d maximize your money if you gave it up today, I just don’t know how much more you’d be making.

No problem! I didn’t get paid to say they’re the best, they just are. Lots of great options and lots of care in designing them for the best intersection of everyone’s foot sins. Plus they always come with extra insoles in different shapes to accommodate both flat foot and… overly-arched foot (you’d think I’d know that term…)

So I’m someone who has to use an orthopedic shoe because I have (really bad) flat foot. So to add more flavor text,

• It is true, orthopedic isn’t really a regulated term, so it gets thrown around pretty aggressively with little meaning.
• Some shoe companies genuinely are creating orthopedic shoes for people with actual foot problems. For me personally, I use Orthofeet brand because I find them to straddle the very weird intersection of shoes with extra wide toe boxes/foots, and terrible arch support, and flexible + lightweight materials. They didn’t pay me to say this, I’m just really really happy with them after nearly a decade of jumping between brands.
• Sometimes orthopedic shoes are not enough… like in my defective case. In my case, I have Orthopedic Insoles which are NOT the same things as the flimsy things in the supermarkets. They’re actually custom molded to my foot, to prevent my skeletal structure from collapsing more under the horribleness of my flat foot. Between my shoes and my insoles, this is literally the difference between me being unable to walk and me being able to run a bit.

If we want to get really technical, the NSTB is requiring all new cars to have emergency braking so in this situation, the car should slam on the brakes. Even if it can’t slow down fast enough to prevent a crash, it should slow down enough to minimize it.

Is this particular Tesla under said law? Probably not. But I think we can see why this tactic is the infinitely safer and more ethical than saying “good luck, control this car on your own or enjoy this 100 km crash otherwise”

I think your statement and the fear for self driving can be true at the same time.

Self driving is safer than humans most of the time… but not all the time. Nothing is perfect.

Self driving currently assumes that a human can intervene when it fails. It assumes that a human is present and not eating a bowl of cereal and applying mascara. It assumes that the human is actually paying attention, in a situation where they usually don’t have to because self driving is usually safer.

Yes, self driving is statically safer. Yes, self driving will one day be perfect.

But I don’t think we can fault anyone for being worried about self driving, especially with companies like Tesla, who sell the promise that you don’t really have to pay attention… even though you kinda have to right now.

I don’t think you said anything differently? The article said ALL batteries must comply by 2027. You appeared to say high performing batteries don’t have to follow the law until 2027. Both of these statements, the original post and your revision, are true – all phones, including high performing batteries, must comply in the EU by 2027.

It sucks to type that because I’m all for helping young adults get higher education. But I do agree with the court, it can’t be at the expense of executive orders because then we’ll be on a crazy hamster wheel with every president. Congress needs to do their dang job and create a college bill that everyone dislikes and likes.

I think in addition to the other points on this page, the thing that keeps coming to me is because I think deep down inside, Biden knows where the fault is.

The Supreme Court’s primary role is to decipher existing laws, existing precedent, and figure out how it should be interpreted in a different era. Yes, I know due to how politicalized everything is, sometimes questionable outcomes come from the Supreme Court. But at the core, their job is to interpret existing law and precedent.

Congress’ role is to actually pass new laws for a new era. It can be argued, they’ve done a terrible job at that because they’re busy trying to appease their base. Because they’re so divided, very little acts, with any substance, are being passed at the federal level.

Expanding the court might result in the outcome you want today, it may not result in the outcome you want tomorrow.

But expanding the court also continues to give Congress a way out of making tricky compromises and laws, so they can continue fundraising on outrage, and yet do very little about things by blaming the other side.