That’s not at all the same logic. Yes, cars can go way above speed limits. And there are use cases where cars need to have more power (driving uphill for example). But this is about an autopilot specifically programmed/instructed to actually go above speed limits, and going above speed limits is illegal. So the setting in itself is illegal. Having the technical ability to go above speed limits is not. If the driver chooses to use that ability and go above speed limits, it’s illegal again. This is not rocket science.

How is this even legal? If a toaster manufacturer introduces a setting “kill neighbour’s dog” it would get sued into oblivion.

I swear, America’s got issues man…

According to Carlin’s theory, 4 prayers to Joe Pesci (PBUH) should suffice for sainthood.

Joe Pesci: patron saint of smashing things with a baseball bat.

No, no they cannot.

It’s OK to be racist against agents if you’re an Aussie.

Tbf, they said ‘at least’.

I’ll bet a gay wedding cake he’ll lose the case.

I wonder if risotto pairs well with flamingo fillets.

Once upon a time, Stephen Colbert ('s character) uttering “It’s a well known fact that reality has a liberal bias” was regarded as satire. Now, I wouldn’t be so sure.

“I have instructed my staff to handle your information request, you have been charged a ‘contact information handling’ fee of 50 dollars”

LACK OF CAPS LOCK IS ALSO A DEAD GIVEAWAY !1!!

Btw also an awesome way of telling people you’re pregnant.

English letters

U_w0t_M8

Like arguing you had right of way from six feet under.

The title is phrased a little weird though, as if Ukraine is to be blamed for this cluster fuck of a situation.

Huh, I thought I recently read China accused the US of tricking China into invading Taiwan but that they won’t take the bait.

I guess this is what ‘not taking the bait’ translates to in Chinese?

“This is terrible, can someone please find Ja Rule ?”

She is still alive so she must’ve made a deal with the drugs cartel is a classic “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy. It is all speculation.

You have deduced incorrectly that I have any thought about her whatsoever. I’m merely pointing out that your reasoning is flawed and therefore invalid.