This is being needlessly pedantic. Disdain for the rights of other people does not start and end at literal written regulations.
And yeah, on some level it's not strictly relevant to the exact legal question being discussed, but part of the purpose of an article is to give you reasons to give a shit about what's being reported.
> but part of the purpose of an article is to give you reasons to give a shit about what's being reported.
And this is where the article is trying to bias the readers.
As I said elsewhere: If this article was "Elon Musk is a shitty guy, and look at all the shitty stuff he does", I'd have no objection to any of this. Present all the examples, make the case, and let the reader decide.
But showing someone violating the law, and then pointing out possible other unrelated violations, you're trying to bias the reader.
If this were on trial and I were on the jury, and the prosecutor used such tactics, I'd be biased against the prosecution. There's a very good reason defense attorneys get judges to rule that such stuff can not be presented to the jurors.
So nobody can report facts if it makes the subject of an article look bad (or good)? This idea of unbiased reporting that you have is ridiculous. This isn't a court of law, and not everything needs to rise to that standard.
If you want something free of bias, go read an NTSB report. Even then, that's not a guarantee!!
Stories that involve peoples' motivations and politics are never free of bias. The fact that you think this is possible might betray some bias of your own.
The issue is only one side of the bias makes the HN front page. Absolute foaming at the mouth nonsensical "articles" about Tesla with terrible predictions, sometimes just outright fake news that someone just made up which BlueSky, Reddit, BlueAnon and HN just lap up, which cheapens HN.
> So nobody can report facts if it makes the subject of an article look bad (or good)?
If the specified goal of the article is to make the subject look bad, then of course it's fine. I've said that in many comments, and I say it again here.
What evidence is there of Musk's competency? Actual testimony that he has provided input that has led to revenue (or some more indirect form of success)? We can all hold and spend money; I'll admit his purchase of SpaceX was intelligent. But outside of that one decision, where is his supposed genius?
They actually think Musk bought SpaceX. If you try to correct such facts on Reddit, you get downvoted and/or permabanned by mods. Same on BlueSky. Sometimes even on here, it's a religion.
The things you're calling irrelevant actually flout a number of regulations in various jurisdictions, if your read news about xAI you should be familiar with the examples.
Yes, I in fact do. Same mentality. "It's only 5 above that's legal", "what use is 6 miles above".
It just creeps in and next thing you know you're complaining about a ticket despite going 15 above. "But everyone else is doing it". No self-reflection, only deflection.
We used to have a factor called "work ethic" to judge people on because once upon a time we recognized that such behavior is contagious. In both good and bad ways. A hard worker will probably pick up an adjacent job quickly. A slacker who otherwise gets stuff done is less likely to. This behavior is no different.
