Sconrad122

I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me that this could be exactly what is happening. The ambulance company's insurance wouldn't pay the hospital directly, they aren't health insurance. So instead, the cyclist's health insurance footed the initial bill. Then they went after the cyclist for his deductible/copay/whatnot. Now he has to get the money from the ambulance company. If this was vehicle on vehicle violence, he would have gone to his auto insurance, who would have in turn went after the ambulance company's insurance, but he might not have auto insurance or auto insurance might not be willing to get involved because he wasn't driving. So he has to go direct to the company. Wouldn't be shocking if the company pushed off any non-legal petitions from him because he doesn't have the name weight of an insurance company with lawyers on retainer, so now he is seeking a legal remedy. Insurance doesn't just work always, there is often a degree of negotiating and litigation involved in these exchanges, especially if one party disagrees with another on matters of liability

This passive language bullshit is so obvious sometimes. "Oh, I wonder what the cyclist did to get run over? And that poor SUV driver getting charged for murder because of this event, Paris is really going off the deep end finding ways to attack innocent drivers." And yet, per the article, the SUV driver ran down the cyclist in a fit of road rage. That sounds an awful lot like an active choice by the driver, not some passive circumstance that the headline implies. If this person got angry and attacked someone with a knife, and the victim died, the headline wouldn't be "Knife owner charged with murder after person stabbed". But use the "right" weapon and all of a sudden we put the kiddie gloves on

I'm assuming they are referring to the fact that this is an unironic usage of a format that typically contains an ironic message. But I think this format is used to express counter narratives of all kinds, both serious and unserious, so I wouldn't call this an incorrect usage. I mean, the format already has some bone hurting juice energy to start with, so I think gatekeeping its usage is maybe outside of the spirit of the template

Hi! I just want to say fuck you for making me laugh at such a bad pun. I thought I had taste. I'm devastated

short distances in solar radii

I think astrophycisists and I may have a difference of opinion on the meaning of the adjective short

Are you assuming that AI in this case is some form of generative AI? I would not ask chatgpt if a mushroom is poisonous. But I would consider using a convolutional neural net based plant identification software. At that point you are depending on the quality of the training data set for the CNN and the rigor put into validating the trained model, which is at least somewhat comparable to depending on a plant identification book to be sufficiently accurate/thorough, vs depending on the accuracy of a story that genAI makes up based on reddit threads, which is a much less advisable venture

It's easier to read if you read it as a line spoken by the Silicon Valley TV character Jian Yang

To be honest, I'm struggling to keep track of the points you are making because you brought in several tangential topics all at once without much context (shale gas vs. oil, oil exports, LCOE, Poland all in a thread about solar energy in Finland compared to fossil fuel energy in Texas). I'll just point out that the US is #4 in oil exports, by either barrels or export value (source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_exports) and the number one oil producer (source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production), so I think it is pretty obvious that the investments into fossil fuel infrastructure in the US are well and above what is necessary for a "strategic reserve" use case

Right now a lot of "renewable energy" sources are subsidized in Europe for only political reasons.

I can assure you the same is true for fossil fuels in Texas right now, so I don't see how this is a strike on renewable energy

Nvidia does not have a strong history of open sourcing things, to say the least. That last bit sounds like pure hopium

Dutch=Netherlands Danish=Denmark

Yes, I'm just speaking to the point the comment was making, that solar panels over parking lots that are at car factories particularly benefit from the hail defense aspect because the parking lot owner (the factory) has a vested interest in maintaining the condition of the parked cars. This isn't an argument for any point of view, it's an explanation of what was clearly ambiguous language by the original commenter, based on your misinterpretation. The sass is unnecessary