In India, big == right of way, so it's not unique. No offence to USA or India, but that attitude is fucking nuts :) As you say, most places have a rule along the lines of "driver is responsible for not hitting other things". I'm incredulous that there are places where that is not the case.

But the source of electricity can change. The significant breakthrough is moving to EV. The rest is "phase <n>".

There are times when people need that mental health break or to be able to have time with family and friends, to goto a movie or to dinner.

This is *why* I go to work. It's not the occasional thing, it's what I do and work finances it.

Where does it say anything about the oil?

Cue: Hear about the constipated mathematician? He worked it out with a pencil.

Correct. Even the plugs are different. I have no idea how anyone thought this could be an option. Tsh!

Yes you do, just not in the context of a domestic government.

Oops. Undoing troll mod. Meant insightful

A religion is a large, popular cult. A cult is a small, unpopular religion.

Not sure about that. Other than developers nobody I know gives a crap about what their browser is. Point it at your search engine or favourite site and off you go. If you find a website that doesn't work you go to another one that does the same thing. People just change websites not their browser. Seriously- nobody gives a shit. And yes, I work in an area where I understand the issues from the site designer and user perspective.

I started a job 10 years ago earning $100k pa. There's a 20 year career before that and similar amount to go in the future. Even without taking into account exchange rates, increases and several travel gaps I've cleared a million easily, probably two. That's just a standard dev/team lead/manager/architect progression. Nothing fancy. It's not a huge amount of money. My house is worth almost that (Australia is stupid like that).

I also think it's strange that somehow it's Google's job to remove pages. If the law is enforceable then it should call to remove content from the offending pages. Search engines can be a powerful tool to identify, enforce and provide ongoing governance. I am surprised Google failed to lobby for and monetize this approach which would have been a better outcome all round.

Google is certainly the wrong target, but they are very well placed to capitalise on any forthcoming law. The correct way of dealing with content is, with sufficient justification, to require that it is removed from the sites. Who knows better than Google where that content is? What better influence to comply with such requirements than "you may be removed from Google". Search engines are in prime position to capitalise on any sort of mandate to remove or issue take-down notices provided there's a small fee involved. An analogy is credit rating - they don't lend the money but they have influence over those that do. You need to clear your name with the agency not the lender.