usehand

I guess they also failed to explode it

Thankfully you only have to do those once, not every time you drive.

I never said mirrors should be replaced.

Also, this conversation is about backing up and parking (read what I said). When backing up you are mostly looking backwards only, so the focal length adjustment point is moot. Even if you have to switch to looking forwards, this is at low speeds / standing still, so it doesn't make a difference.

I'll restate my point with emphasis because you seem to not have read it: Cameras are infinitely more useful for backing up and parking.

Modern cameras give a way better view of what's behind and to the side of the car than you can ever achieve through mirrors. There's really no comparison. Yes, if you're comparing to older, inferior camera systems mirrors might be better, but not the modern ones.

I say this as someone who learned to drive and drove for a long time with no cameras. People saying this are just usually just used to mirrors and never bothered to take the time to learn to switch to the cameras for backwards maneuvering, or their cars just are not equiped with the latest tech.

Sometimes you want to be cooler sometimes the other way? Sometimes you want cool wind blowing in your face, sometimes you don't? Is it really that hard to grasp? lol

Also different people use the same car at different times, etc.

Cameras are infinitely more useful for backing up and parking. Not being able to use them is actually a skill issue.

And that's the reason I won't. You can see yourself how insanely easy it is to find this info (you replied with one you probably found pretty quickly yourself), and yet these people who are full of quickly-formed opinions are constantly trying to offload the work onto others.

Besides the overall lack of information in these, they were also found to be lying in them

Uncritically posting lies from the accused party

He's not doing any favors to a case that was essentially lost and dead by bringing tons of attention to it to the point where there's a chance it might actually see a positive outcome, plus a good amount of cash via GoFundMe? Sure...

Quantum physics guarantees us anything is a possibility. The question is, is it a likely one at all? And the overwhelmingly likely reasons are obvious to anyone with half a brain, given all the surrounding context here.

Well, yes, if someone doesn't care to look for the full story then there will be holes almost by definition.

The common accepted meaning of "holes in a story" is not "I don't know the facts", but "the story itself is misleading or incomplete".

So they chose to lose a case on merits related to the other case instead of making statements that would help (if they are in the right)?

Yep, I meant rational in the purely self-interested sense

> False. I said that a 3rd party traveling across the country to serve papers himself and then sitting in front of the house while police are called 4 times is needless YouTube drama.

Notice how you ignore the second quote? Anyone can literally search these comments see what you said.

I guess there's not much you can do to try to argue that you're not defending the company, when you're claiming the people exposing them are just creating "drama" and are not trustworthy, so you default to just pretending you didn't say it.

This is not pancakes and waffles. This is someone putting out a video saying a corporation is poisoning pancakes, and you at the same time say "the video is not trustworthy" while trying to claim you are not defending the corporation.

> You are awfully obsessed with stalking my comment history and then misquoting what I said.

I'm not stalking your "comment history", I'm just replying to comments in this post. Again, are you incapable of factual accuracy?