Apologies, I should have been clearer, if something is ambiguous and a government acts dodgy, I don't dismiss it. Buy things like no planes on 911, flat earth, chakras , reptile overlords, magic and so forth, I am default sceptical.
perhaps RTFA, Tesla provided documentation that said the car had actually been involved in a collision.
SO they lied, incompetently tried to cover it up, handed over evidence that proved their opponents case, were found to be at fault, appealed the result, which was upheld. Now they want to sue this guy for, what seems to be, winning his case.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
In other words, you can point out that the comment contradicts the article (graciously). You're not beholden to still assume they read the article if it's blatantly obvious they did not, and are directly contradicting a key element of the article.
The point is that the rules are there to promote constructive discussion. Having blatantly false speculation go unchallenged is significantly worse for that than saying "RTFA" – and insisting on “apologise or delete” is completely derailing the conversation.
Thx for linking to my project! I created it with dependency-free in mind so I don't actually use any library at all, hence the absence of package.json.
Imagine the profits Pfizer is going to have. Hell of a quarter.