Chatbots have been biased since I remember. You ask the right question, you get the opinion of someone who was in charge.

I doubt you can trust even today's chatbots etc. to be 'unbiased', though in the current political landscape everyone thins what they disagree with is 'biased', neither genuine nor true.

Such has been politics since Aristotle. Add in violence, and, well, some like von Clausewitz believe all politics is violence of some form. Which I write not to endorse physical violence in any form, but to indict those who do.

Oh, I neglected to add...

"Because blowing shit up in any orbit, is so self-defeating a child could see it."

You're correct. And your complaint is also with the CCP. But war is always a gamble - can you win something worth more than the costs? Or can you defeat the aggressor with acceptable costs? Look carefully at the Ukraine conflict. While it seems that Ukraine is somehow succeeding at assymetrical warfare, listen to reporters on the ground. The mainstream is publishing propaganda, nothing new there. And it may seem this is illustrating the 'future of warfare'. Or it's smoke and mirrors, and a different game is truly afoot. Starlink could be destroyed, perhaps, with a Kessler attack, kill enough birds to cause fratricide. Destroy the geostationary birds? That's more damaging and gets a different response. Kill the surveillance birds in polar orbit? A different response. The CCP would be playing the long game I think. We would play the retaliatory game, I think. The mid powers are all spectators, and they are beginning to hate that, but they can't afford to play. The US must only match capability for now. There are alternatives to on-orbit destruction. We'll develop those.

Oh, so you mean. 'China deployed a weapon in space and *used* it'?

Then again, after a Kessler event, first the lost resources need to be replaced, even marginally, so that life is not too unbearable /s. Then the debris cleanup must begin. It will have to be done.

Then whoever gets up there first will mostly win. And I would put good money on knowing who gets up there first, unless the NWO offs them and destroys their industrial advantage.

And I want MY nation to be the winner. Obviously. Your wishing me and my nation ill is only 'me win' in disguise.

Correct. The proper response is "I don't answer questions". And if they detain you, "I don't answer questions without a lawyer present".

The proper question is why should you be required to answer such a question if it's not related to a traffic stop. Your response is riddled with assumptions that first, the officer is investigating another crime, in which case indeed they may have questions to ask. A robbery? Do they have a description of the vehicle? Does it match yours, even minimally? If not, they really don't have any evidence on which to base a further expansion of the stop. Nonetheless, if you go to trial, you're not going to be required to say yes, that was my car. Let them prove it was your car. And in this case at the stop, all of what you're describing is more or less entirely inadequate for detention. Innocent until proven guilty is part of this. If they have reasonable suspicion, of course they can expand on the stop. If they're just fishing around, where you're coming from, where you're going, no.

Consider:

Traffic stop. Officer is making 'small talk'. "Where ya goin?". Where ya comin from?".

These are generally not 'small talk'. They are fishing questions, cop asking for info that could lead to suspicion, and detention while they dig for more.

And these sorts of questions can generally be answered by, simply, "None of your business, officer".

Every subsequent question, such as "I'm just making small talk", or "Hey, no big deal", or "What's the problem, you have something to hide?" are all just follow up fishing questions. And deserve no answer.

During a traffic stop, Flock gives officers information they would normally be lawfully denied, like "Where ya coming from?". Flock sidesteps your right to constitutionally refuse such information (and in the absence of reasonably articulable suspicion or other evidence, during a traffic stop, denies the officer the right to demand such information) and as such is a blight on constitutional protections. Flock must be better controlled, or abandoned.

And officers using Flock to look up the plates of their ex, former landlord, or the random guy who gave them a dirty look at a stop light are plainly violating these individuals' rights, and must be sanctioned. And the supervision of the abuses systems similarly sanctioned. Meaningful sanctions, every incident.

The Government rarely surrenders access to information. They seek power at every opportunity. In America, only the Constitution, and adherence to law, can nominally restrict this.

They aren't the only one. Trying to figure out what is a bicycle on a high resolution monitor with a small resolution CAPTCHA is a pain for old eyes.

That is not making it better...

I certainly do not expect better of you. Wrong ahs a new spelling, and it starts with you.

If the dealership wanted to discourage public, non-customer use, they could post the fees and ward off those who would not pay $5 per minute PLUS kw charges. But, I suspect, this is just sharp practice, gouge them when they are not looking.

And why do I want to stick with hybrids?

Do we expect better from a 5digit UID? Actually, nope. We've given up on reason from most of you all.

Rename Erie as to Lake America as well - they're close enough. Then you can have HAMAS.

Betcha Lenin, Stalin, Engels, and Mao weren't vegans either.

Don't forget to read my sig.

Talking about the President reading briefs shouldn't be a question. Yet, it reportedly is for this President. What I have seen reported is that he doesn't have the patience or reading ability to do the reading in order to make an informed decision. He relies on bullet pointed summaries that better not go over one or at most two pages. If correct, that is wrong for any sitting President.

I don't think that any person would debate that the issues the President is addressing are potentially very real. Foreign chips, dependence on foreign suppliers for critical items, and probably even a very small number of products in trade should indeed be handled. But the ways he goes about solving them are shortsighted and wrong. There are very few companies which are going to do much more than lip service to claim they are investing in America, and hope that saner heads in 2028 will prevail and they can get back to business. Nobody in America wants to pay for what "Made in America" as opposed to at most "Assembled in America" would cost them. They're having troubles making ends meet as it is and are perfectly happy buying "Made Elsewhere".

I'm a Republican, by the way, and proud to say I have never voted for Trump. I also haven't voted for candidates who are rabidly pro Trump at the federal level either. For state offices, there frequently isn't a choice as many times there may just be one Republican candidate on the ballot and a slot for a write-in. But Congress needs to find their collective spines that they were issued at birth and rein in the idiocy spewing from the White House.