wewbull

William engaged with soldiers...

Top choice of phrasing there BBC.

To give you a less conspiratorial answer than other, because those that stood against it were labelled as being against "the will of the people". Basically even though it was non-binding, those that were pro-brexit clothed themselves as following democracy, and those who opposed them as anti-democratic.

There were several problems with the referendum:

1. It was called to try to quell a split within the conservative party. Not because of any real movement in the country.

2. It never specified what "leaving the EU" meant. When, how fast, what remaining relationship? So the debate was nebulous. Positives were extremely optimistic and negatives were dismissed as pessimistic (despite being true).

3. The non-binding nature meant that no margin of certainty was set. It should have needed a majority of the voting public, or > ⅔ to be taken as something we really wanted to do. It was too major a change to enact on 52-48.

4. We don't govern by referenda in the UK. They go against the principle that parliament is sovereign because they place the people's voice above parliament's. We're a representative democracy and not a direct one. The only other ones we've had are

   • 2011: The Alternative Vote voting system held a few year before. Also called by David Cameron and also a complete sham of a process.
   • 1975: Continued membership of the European Community. Called by Edward Heath to quell the same split in the conservative party.

Hence the rules that surround referenda are poorly specified.

People forget the JSF project had a multinational aspect to it.

My recollection of danish food was, you can have meat you like as long as it came from a pig. Wouldn't surprise me if the beer was similar.

It's the prospect of kicking Russian butt that keeps them so happy.

I hadn't realised the USB committee had found new jobs.

Not saying you're wrong (because I've always found it suspicious how Tesla always seems to report that autopilot is disengaged for fatal accidents) but there's probably some people asking themselves "how could it detect the wall to disengage itself?".

The image on the wall has a perspective baked into it so it will look right from a certain position. A distance from which the lines of the real road match perfectly with the lines of the road on the wall. As you get closer than this distance the illusion will start to break down. The object tracking software will say "There are things moving in ways I can't predict. Something is wrong here. I give up. Hand control to driver".

Autopilot disengaged.

(And it only noticed a fraction of a second before hitting it, yet Mark is very conscious of it. He's screaming. )

Sidenote: the same is true as you move further from the wall than the ideal distance. The illusion will break down in that way too. However, the effect is far more subtle when you're too far away. After all, the wall is just a tiny bit of your view when you're a long way away, but it's your whole view when you're just about to hit it.

He said he tapped the brakes on one of the earlier non-wall runs.

Whilst I agree on the wall, fog and rain are not extreme weather conditions. I'd rather he'd used a level of rain that was less intense. However, the fact is lidar still worked even though it was not clear it was going to.

For those that didn't see it....

There was a Nazi rally at Madison Square Gardens. The US is very nationalistic (How many countries force their children to pledge alliance to the flag daily?) and that can easily become a problem.