Google provides search that is always just slightly better than it's competitors, the better it is, the lower the revenue, they are incentivised to produce the worst (most profitable) results possible.
One would think that would make him shy away from deceptive claims like the implication that a collision between two LEO satellites puts GPS at severe imminent risk.
The things required to increase passengers per bus to the required 3-4 average to beat cars are well known. More frequent service, better route coverage, reduced prices. As these variables move that way, average passenger counts tend to go up. The layout of cities usually does not need to change at all in order to make public transit function well.
A big part of the reason that things didn't change is because that lawsuit and others like it ended in a settlement. If this behaviour and data was established as part of the judicial/public record, it would have been much easier to address.
If I was a billionaire I would readily pay 1-5 million dollars a year to a bank that would guarantee an entire 100 million dollar account by not lending out any of the money. This would of course have to be a bank that didn't lend out any money at all and existed entirely to server individuals that didn't want their money held in a bank that used fractional reserve banking.
A choice must be made. Either be more restrictive and controlling meaning that some people that need the drugs don't get them. Or be less restrictive and controlling meaning that some people you think shouldn't get the drugs get them.
I've been impressed not only with cloud arm performance but also usability. I had a hobby project that was using minecraft, javascript, bash, and such. IIRC absolutely nothing needed to be changed going from x86 to Arm. I got better performance (for my odd application) and better price.
Without any explanation as to why, the article references several developments in robotics that have seemingly zero relation to its primary claim as evidence in support of its primary claim. Color me unimpressed and unconvinced.
1. That is not what the study found.
2. The reason that there is limited evidence that masks work is that the effort required to collect more than limited evidence that masks work has not been undertaken.
The question being asked: "Does hand-washing or wearing masks slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?"
Your question has nothing to do with the question being asked.
This part in the section about limitations tells me that the only reasonable conclusion is that more data is needed:
> Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies.