adfgadfhionio

You forgot the end of that story:

"Go forth and sin no more."

All I ask is that you try to do the right thing. That's it. I can understand, accept, and forgive failure as long as you try.

I do not understand people like you. Everyone does the wrong thing sometimes, but I do not see how you can calmly and knowingly choose to do evil and not even be ashamed of it. How can you be so casual about hurting other people for your own selfish ends? It is completely alien to me.

Let me start off by saying that it's silly to discuss the design of a vehicle that does not exist. All anyone has seen so far is a scale model. I'm not sure it's even developed enough to call a concept. We might as well discuss whether it's better to ride a unicorn or a griffon.

>Large, extremely safe

So engineered to kill everyone except the driver. Big, heavy cars are safe only because they flatten the other party in a crash. The Cybertruck will be even worse than your average murdermobile because, as an EV, it will be unusually heavy.

And it gets worse:

>no body that gets easily dented

Cars don't have squishy bodywork by accident. Flexible, easily-dented bodywork is a safety feature. The front end of a car is designed to crumple to minimize acceleration.

Well, everyone knows about crumple zones. Clearly cars need to crumple at highway speeds, but the driver is in no danger in a parking lot. However, it is crucial that this happen even for minor collisions. Any collision with a pedestrian is a minor collision from the perspective of the car but catastrophic from the perspective of the pedestrian. The hood, bumpers, and panels must flex and dent even in a fender bender if they are to protect a pedestrian at 20 miles an hour.

>A duty of care arguably extends beyond one’s immediate source: You don’t have to assist an individual in publicizing the workings of government, but at the very least, you should not intentionally compromise them.

This is, as far as I can tell, the only real substance in this article, and it is completely undefended. If journalists have an obligation to avoid exposing leakers, then the actions of these organizations were inappropriate. But the author does absolutely nothing to establish that journalists have such an obligation.

There are leaks of classified material that are, I think, plainly harmful. This is one of them. None of the information I have seen revealed is useful to the public, but may be useful to the Kremlin. No responsible journalist would have published this information had it been provided to them. I see no reason to want to encourage this kind of "transparency".

>NPR recently decried being labeled by Twitter as state-affiliated media, writing that this is a label Twitter uses “to designate official state mouthpieces and propaganda outlets.” That unrelated controversy is notable given that an NPR staffer seems to have deputized himself to act as a government investigator by posting image analyses on Twitter. (While NPR has announced that its official organizational accounts have quit Twitter, individual staff accounts still appear to be active.)

"Unrelated" is right. Why bring in conspiracy theories?