The less free people feel to speak their minds the less likely they are to do so.
The less people speak their minds, the more likely they are to lose them.
But if people go ahead speak their minds despite feeling less free to do so, the more they appear to have lost their minds.
This appearance is most convincing to those who have already lost theirs.
New York likes to torment its citizens.
Why not leave some Tesla chargers and add universal chargers?
Our governor is a complete hack.
X Corp. v. James
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70560305/x-corp-v-james/
- Plaintiff X Corp. brings this action challenging the constitutionality and legal validity of certain provisions within New York Senate Bill S895B1 that force social media companies (collectively, the “covered companies”) to divulge—under threat of significant financial penalties and lawsuits for injunctive relief—highly sensitive information about whether, and if so how, their platforms define and moderate (i) hate speech or racism, (ii) extremism or radicalization, (iii) disinformation or misinformation, (iv) harassment, and (v) foreign political interference. See N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 1102(1)(c), 1102(1)(d)(i), 1102(1)(e), and 1103 (only insofar as it applies to the prior three provisions) (collectively, the “Content Category Report Provisions”).
TechCrunch reports that Jenna Shumway …
Surprise !!! Surprise ! It is a woman alleging harassment. What was that old saying? If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
After the crash, the Tesla driver claimed “he dropped (his) phone and bent down to retrieve it from the floorboard” at the time of the collision, the lawsuit states.
Their families argue Tesla’s Autopilot system failed to prevent the crash and that the company deceptively marketed the Autopilot as being more powerful and comprehensive than it was.
The plaintiff is not the driver, but the estate of someone hit by the car.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59932667/benavides-v-tesla-inc/
$243 Million in “damages” – mostly going to inflate the Net Worth of a handful of destructive lawyers.
But every cloud has a silver lining! Imagine the marketing guy in BYD (or one of the many other Electric Vehicle manufacturers in China) going into his boss with a plan to sell Chinese-made EVs with autopilot-like features in the US.
Boss shakes his head – No Way! Let those crazy Americans sue themselves back to the Stone Age. We will sell our competitively-priced high-tech cars only in sensible countries. Tesla breathes a sigh of relief.
Last I heard “damages” had to be reasonable and not punitive. This is clearly a case of jury emotion and overreach. Judges are empowered to correct that with remittitur. Reduction of the amount of the awarded damages to reflect the actual economic harm is necessary in cases like these. Otherwise, given the effects of woke emotional absurdities (combined with lack of knowledge and absence of critical thinking, generally), awards for “pain & suffering” damages alone in negligence lawsuits, will quickly overtake the national debt in magnitude.
The so-called actual damages of 129 million dollars assessed 33% against Tesla were quite punitive. Then you have the “punitive damages” of 200 million dollars assessed entirely against Tesla.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued Tesla oversold the capabilities of Autopilot, leading the driver of a Model S sedan to take his eyes off the road as he approached a T-intersection in the Florida Keys after sundown. The Tesla failed to stop at the intersection and slammed into a parked SUV, killing 20-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon as she was standing next to the SUV and injuring her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo.
The Tesla was traveling at 62 miles per hour just before the crash, according to data cited at trial. The intersection had a stop sign and a flashing red light.
Benavides Leon’s family and Angulo sued the driver and also Tesla, arguing that its Autopilot software should have warned the driver and braked before the vehicle crashed.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom said she accepted the jury’s verdict and would issue an order accordingly.
Most wrongful death lawsuits reach a settlement or are dismissed, but this lawsuit went to trial as a major public test of Tesla’s safety record. Tesla argued that the driver of the Model S was solely responsible for the crash because he was reaching for a dropped cellphone when it happened.
The driver, George McGee, testified during the trial he believed Autopilot failed him.
“My concept was it would assist me should I have a failure or should I miss something, should I make a mistake — that the car would be able to help me. And in that case, I do feel like it failed me,” he said.
The plaintiffs sued McGee separately, and that case was settled.
The explanation isn’t fully consistent or inclusive of everything.
Was the vehicle parked in the road? Running the red light is one failure and hitting a parked car is a different failure. Hitting the parked car seems like the critical failure and running the red light is a severe failure, but not necessarily the failure that caused the death.
A stop sign and a flashing red light make it a stop sign intersection, not running a red light. Failure to stop at a stop sign is the correct charge.
I still think there should be two. If you fail to stop and then drive into a building, there are two offenses.
Not everything should be an “offence”. To me, this is one of the problems of today’s “justice system” - overcharging. So, a person shoots another 9 times. The shootee dies. The shooter is charged with 9 counts of Homicide. ?On what planet does that make ANY sense. You have ONE body and one killer; the killer should be charged with homicide, period. To argue that one can’t be sure which bullet caused the death implies on its face the killer is Not Guilty of at least 8 of the 9 counts, since even the prosecution says there’s reasonable doubt. A clever attorney could argue the killer is Not Guilty of ALL the counts, since the prosecution claims they don’t know which round killed the victim. Remember, juries are supposed to be finders of fact as the case is presented, not “as it SHOULD be” presented.
If a jury returned even one or two such verdicts, there would be a significant drop in all the BS overcharging.