I can confirm that All on Sopuli is regularly inundated by suggestive (but usually not outright pornographic) anime pics. Most of these are the “Moe” communities, but there are a handful that specific to the franchise the characters are from.
There’s a certain point where they become abandoned property, and you can just do with them whatever you want. My guess is that it’s some point after the existing contract runs out, plus 30/90/365 days or whatever. Possibly requiring a court order, public notice, or something else. This will depend entirely on your jurisdiction’s laws on abandoned property.
The weird thing about this claim is that these aren’t deal breakers. It’s possible to get insurance for exotics like McLaren or Bugatti (although no idea if GEICO does those); it just costs a lot.
I’d really like to hear more about those underwriting standards.
I once heard it described as a “3 day relationship between a 13-year-old and a 16-year-old that left 6 people dead”
Presumably, “other places” refers to other insurance companies. IOW, GEICO is (allegedly) denying them coverage. OP is hoping that Allstate, Progressive, etc will also deny coverage.
My point is that every company is a tech company.
It’s easy to think of tech as being companies that primarily produce electronics or operate information services, but that’s not the case. Every company uses (and often creates) technology in various forms that benefit from standards and interoperation.
Connected devices benefit from standardized Wi-Fi. Cars benefit from standardized fuel- both in ICE (octane ratings, pumps) and electric (charging connectors, protocols). It even applies to companies that make simple molded plastic, because the molds can be created/used at many factories, including short-term contract manufacturing.
It’s very much the Oracle model.
A long time ago, Oracle DB could handle workloads much, much larger than any of their competitors. If you needed Oracle, none of the others were even a possibility. There are even tales that it was a point of pride for some execs.
Then Oracle decided to put the screws to their customers. Since they had no competition, and their customers had deep pockets (otherwise they wouldn’t have had such large databases), they could gouge all they wanted. They even got new customers, because they had no competition.
Fast forward and there are now a number of meaningful competitors. But it’s not easy to switch to a different DB software, and there are a ton of experienced Oracle devs/DBAs out there. There are very few new projects built using Oracle, but the existing ones will live forever (think COBOL) and keep sucking down licensing fees.
VMware thinks they are similarly entrenched, and in some cases they’re right. But it’s not the simple hypervisor that everyone is talking about. That can easily be replaced by a dozen alternatives at the next refresh. Instead it’s the extended stack, the APIs and whatnot, that will require significant development work to switch to a new system.
Often there are contracts. Sometimes for a very long time, often multi-year. There are sometimes escape clauses (like a morality clause for a spokesperson), but these aren’t easy to invoke.
I suspect many of them are up for annual review/renewal, when they can be terminated without penalty. It might also just be an attempt to get better terms.
Uber’s insurance is pretty bad. Many get the additional coverage from their regular insurer anyway because of this. That coverage also (usually) applies to this situation as well.
“handle” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The signs are already there that all of these edge cases will just be programmed as “safely pull over and stop until conditions change or a human takes control”. Which isn’t a small task in itself, but it’s a lot easier than figuring out to continue (e.g.) on ice.
Will this help users on Bing with their number 1 desired search destination, Google?
Or their 7th most common destination, Bing?
Not necessarily. They could split the video in advance, assuming the ads will always be at the same point. Even if not, they could still use the direct, unaltered source with a range. The big challenge would be keeping it all synced, which I think is safe to say that they will get right.
But even if it did need to be transcoded, YouTube automatically transcodes every single video uploaded, multiple times. They are clearly not afraid of it.
I said nothing of the sort, and have no idea where you got that idea. All I said was that marketing claims are separate from the contract.
However, this thread is clearly not interested in any actual exchange of ideas or information, so I will no longer be taking part. Go ahead and downvote.
False advertising has nothing to do with breach of contract. Completely separate sections of law.
Nothing offered in perpetuity will stand up in court. You can argue about reasonable terms, but it can never be forever.
Marketing gets you into the contract. The contract holds the actual terms that both (or all) parties are bound to.
I would be surprised if this goes anywhere meaningful. Those were marketing promises, not contract terms. I noticed the promotion ended just over 2 years before the price hike, indicating that everyone had completed their contract. Once the contract is over, either side can walk away, or renegotiate terms.
It negates the point of a contract. What kind of contract even has a term of length without a set price?
The average lifespan of a car is 200k miles, not 300k. While it’s not uncommon to see cars going higher than that, it’s rare to see them get to 300k. I’ve had 2 Toyotas that died between 230k and 260k. There are more citations in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_longevity
Given that 300k km is ~186k miles, I think OP made a pretty reasonable comparison.
As for robustness, how do you even define that? Repair costs per year/mile? Frequency of repairs needed? In either case, there’s a much bigger gap between a Jeep and a Toyota than between ICE and BEV.
Let’s not forget the Golden Handcuffs. Although given what was reported from Twitter, I’m not sure that applies.
It would be interesting to see how that plays out in court. That clip shows that the CEO himself is aware of the concerns, and refuses to address them. It also implicitly acknowledges that the reasoning was because of those issues, and not a conspiracy to harm ex-Twitter.