Tastes have changed.

Your judgement is different from their judgement.

What you are calling ‘realistic’ probably did not even exist then, and nobody missed it.

But she didnt stop leaning on me, this went on for the next 10 mins.

You could kindly offer her to sit on your lap.

The whole thing was eye rollingly stupid, but when in America…

Hehe :)

Here: nearly unthinkable. Nobody needs to inform the police in explicit words about their rights, because rights have to be respected whether you tell some magic spell or not, and the police knows people’s rights, because it is their job, so nobody needs to explain them. These police would get their asses full of trouble for such a prank.

No, that’s not what I meant.

You said above > Passwords are contents of the mind, and therefore protected

So I am asking, isn’t it protected in the same way if it is a content of a piece of paper in the defendant’s possession?

Can they force him to give it to them, to tell them where it is, to confirm if it is his own piece of paper etc.

In the context of the discussion, I don’t know what you are getting at here.

I was implicitly asking if it would be any different then, in your legislation. For example, can they ask him for the paper where the password is written?

Passwords are contents of the mind

Or contents of a piece of paper.

a condition of their arrangement be to allow their devices to be searched.

Outrageous. This is taking away the defendant’s rights. Nobody can ever believe that he made this decision of his own free will.

Here, this right cannot be taken away, therefore such an agreement would be invalid.

All of these are included in the 5th

I can hardly believe that, since I have read (not in movies) about cases when prosecution has forced accused people to give them passwords etc.

if you choose to temporarily waive your right to silence

you may at any point reassert that right.

You are saying this with so many words… do you really need to speak it out loud, like “I assert my right…”? I mean, can’t you simply tell a thing or not tell it, at any time?

American understandings agree with the notion of innocent until proven guilty and that rights exist regardless of accusations.

Well, from American movies you usually get the impression that all rights disappear suddenly as soon as the police comes into the picture… This is really very, very different here. Even as an accused you can talk to policemen like to normal people in 99% of all cases.

those accused of crimes but not yet convicted.

People have rights.

Rights do not disappear just because you get accused.

In addition, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” applies, and it is only the judge who decides what is proven and what is not (this protects from prejudice at the police)

I don’t know all your amendments, but there is a thing like your 5th. just stronger: The accused is free not to help the police in any way. He may say things or remain silent, he needs not to give them things, and they may not create any kind of disadvantage for him from that. Also the court must not interpret this against him. Also spouse and family are not required to help or testify.

It is Germany here.

They should seize and sell his private jet.

cars clearly function beyond level 2.

You want to read again what level 4 means.

Between the levels it is not just about function, but about completeness of circumstances.

and in practice Tesla FSD beta is SAE level 4.

In theory this is pure bull, and in practice it is level 4 bull.

My wife is still on Windows on her own laptop. But for watching TV, she has been using Linux successfully with an appropriate GUI (vdr, mythtv, Kodi, Androidtv…) for 15 years or so :)

orange clown who can barely keep a coherent thought

Just assume the possibility that this is partly a show, in order to make people underestimate him. His way of talking in fuzzy, noncommittal half sentences is a method to distribute only suggestions instead of clear statements.

deleted by creator

Maybe in order to give each resident the same chance to jump?

/s

Was i just gambling my life or has the tech somehow gotten worse?

We can safely assume that tech has evolved to the better during this time.

But it is still too dangerous. It should not be allowed on public roads yet.

It was called that name at the time when the kills happened.

Investigators will look into the ability of “Full Self-Driving” to “detect and respond appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions

They will have to look long and hard…