The linked announcement is satire. And hysterical.
But the acquisition is also real.

The Onion isn’t news.
What’s this doing here?

Edit: OH! The Onion actually, really, genuinely, bought InfoWars! OK I get it.

If they’re using time travel to create a causality loop, that’s different than a time loop.

Time loops usually reset causality, accept for those actually experiencing the loop iterations.

Memorizing every little detail of everyone’s lives and actions that day always seemed incredible to me. I assumed he lived that day hundreds of thousands of times. Meaning centuries spent repeating the same day.

At least that’s what I imagine it would take, for me to try countless methods of suicide.

Haven’t seen it, but sounds like it. Time travel can certainly be used to create loops.

I say no.

Time travel stories are about going to a different time.
Time loop stories are repeating the same time.
It’s really that simple.

Time loops are anti-time travel really, as there’s no movement in time at all.

Are you using marketing statements as evidence of… Anything?
That’s almost never a good idea.

That quote isn’t referring solely to this specific intersection design.
But yes it’s also safer for bicycles and pedestrians. Just not as safe as not using cars.

And spending $25 million on a 25th train instead, wouldn’t make this interchange 60% safer. Or even 5% safer.

Again. It’s better. Nobody claims it’s perfect.

None of which are problems they’re actually trying to tackle.
They improve traffic a bit (not solve), and are substantially safer. They’re only meant to do those 2 things, and they’re good at it. Nobody thinks a single intersection idea will fix transportation as we know it.

That’s just your status quo bias.
This video explains how it’s remarkably better.

A search index isn’t a public facing search engine or service.
They’re building a common database for them to both use, as well as others.

So trying to beat Brave or any other search provider, isn’t the goal of this project.
It’s about creating a new index, Brave, or Bing, or other search providers could use if they wanted.

Oh! Now I get it. You’re talking about something I wasn’t. It’s true none of that has anything to do with the rules specifically, like I thought. But instead, you want to talk about some broader point we weren’t thinking or talking about. Okay. Yes your right. It matters to the larger situation, beyond the scope of our immediate discussion. Thank you for explaining.

I’m not sure how any that matters to any campaign finance rules that might prevent Biden from giving his war chest to another candate?

People don’t even take turns in a circular firing squad.
I have no idea what you’re talking about any more.

Neutrality is about not treating some forms of data different than others.
Data caps are still neutral. They don’t care what kind of data you use, only how much.

That’s not to say they aren’t a problem. Just a different one.

It’s not an argument. It’s an excuse.
A post-hoc justification, given as a robotic response to my explaining how it’s false.
In this exchange it’s literal nonsense.

This is objectively FUBR. But is Fuck Cars against ambulances?
I’m not against ambulances!

That could be.
That’s not what I was thinking.
Thinking again, that seems quite likely.

No candidates stepped forward.

Because Biden ran.
I said that.
That was the whole point of what I said.

You don’t seem to be participating anyway.

That makes sense.