Kazumara

Kou just arrived in France, and was meeting Catherine, who is a kwōtā and had grown up in France, for the first time. Catherin spoke French in the first panel. Kou assumed - correctly - that Catherine would speak Japanese, and tried speaking Japanese to her in the second panel, but Catherine faked not understanding it in the third panel.

The reading order is: Right column top to bottom, then left column top to bottom.

I mean sure, we could talk about Google's motivations, I'm not a fan of their sycophancy either.

But I don't think it matters. In a civil suit first of all President Sheinbaum would have to assert a tort against Google, and for that you need to demonstrate you were damaged due to anothers wrongdoing or at least negligence.

So yes, it actually is about the harm. And if that is given, then they still have to argue, that it was wrongful or at least negligent to add the "sensitive country" name of the area to Google Maps. But I don't think there are any laws that restrict Google or any other private mappers to using any source of information in particular, so that will be hard.

Of course they are morally bankrupt, but legally I just don't see anything significant happening.

And in the meantime the executive order had the intended effect of making the U.S. Board on Georgraphic Names change the name in their systems, so Google can use that as a fig leaf too

I'm not suggesting she should kiss ass, far be it from me. But I still don't see a good motive for this move. A civil suit is not going to get her anything, she's just highlighting Trumps symbolic bullshit even more.

And then when the suit either goes against her or goes for her but results in laughibly low compensation because the measureable harm is not significant, then it will look like a confirmation of the power of the convict in chief.

Yeah the companies obsoleting stuff are never worried about cutting off customers anyway. Fuck em.

Oh yeah that sounds brilliant. Not like that market needs a stable regulatory environment for their massive investrment to come to fruition. I'm sure it will inspire a lot of confidence in investments in the US chip market when he alters the deal after billions of sunk cost.

Yeah they don't, since they are fabless. Same as Nvidia or Apple. They all design chips.

So it just obsoletes them for the model users that buy ebooks from Amazon and put them on their Amazon device without conversion in between. Even though this user group should be Amazon's favourites.

lol, lmao even.

The article opens with saying only 25% of the fuel's energy gets used by the motor, 75% is in the heat of the exhaust. I'll take that as a given. Let's assume a small motor (in this inventions favour) with a nominal power of only 60 kW, running only at half tilt, 30 kW.

That gives us 90 kW in the exhaust heat by the numbers of the article. So the 56 W it captured in the simulation would be 0.046% of the total 120 kW power being converted by burning the fuel, raising the efficiency from 25% to 25.046%.

The headline is so massively overstated it's basically just a lie. If the device was built, not just simulated, and you'd manage to substitute part of the alternator's ouput with the thermoelectic generator's output, the effect on fuel economy would be below the measurable level.

the equivalent of me telling the bank to write and mail a check to a company on my behalf.

What the fuck? Why don't they just transfer the money electronically instead?

Oh, sorry. You're right. I was wrong on that point. I didn't realize it showed the sensitive label in parenthesis to others.

I would maintain the rest of the argument though, with the Mexican (and global) point of view being the more prominently displayed, there is no significant harm, and she doesn't stand to gain anything from pursuing a civil case, nor politically.

This is stupid. Google is doing it with their normal process, labeling the USA as a sensitive country in their system and ~~changing the label only for the sensitive snowflakes. So there is no harm to Mexicans in Mexico.~~ (this was wrong, it's show globally in parenthesis, see below)

What sort of damages would she assert anyway? That her country suffers in a significant way from a Google Maps label that can only be seen from the sensitive country? How so?

And if it's a political move what is she hoping to achieve? Google will never cave to the USA before Mexico, they depend more on their US operations than their Mexican ones. So she can't achieve anything politically. Does she want to draw even more attention to a losing fight? A losing fight over mere symbolism no less? Why?

I don't think you're really helping laymen by using off-kilter terminology. It's way more confusing if they go to find more information and stumble across other people using it properly.