I suspect it's one of those topics he likes to drum up if he needs to distract from something else.
(My suspicion is that this other topic is the walking back on campaign promises on immigration with the H1B visa thing)

That doesn't mean it's not still harmful. This stuff does harm relations with America's European allies, but I suspect that he is not actually planning on doing anything.

An alternative explanation could be that he simply wants to get his hands on a very resource rich area such as Greenland.

From my understanding there are two main beneftis:

• Capacity
• Safety

Roundabouts work great, until the amount of traffic becomes to big. Then it actually starts causing problems.
At that point you can put in a regular intersection with traffic lights, which actually works better than a roundabout does in high traffic environments. But you do lose out on the traffic safety benefits, with head-on collisions becoming possible again.

A roundabout with traffic lights increases the capacity of the intersection while still reducing the risk of deadly accidents.
It's also a lot cheaper than upgrading to the next step, which is building an interchange.

Signalised roundabouts are also quite prevalent in the Netherlands, and I can speak from experience that they generally work quite well if the lights are adjusted properly.

Note: I'm just some random guy, I'm by no means an expert on the matter.
This is just my understanding of the benefits of lighted roundabouts.

That is indeed the goal, but there is still a PR battle to be had on the issue.

To my knowledge this is the first time that congestion pricing has been implemented in North-America, and how people react to this will decide whether other North-American cities are willing to take the risk and do the same thing. Over the next couple of months there will likely be a lot of opinion pieces and articles that try to make you think that the congestion pricing is a failure and should be reversed.

Edit: typo

Edit: Sorry I'm dumb. I misread your comment multiple times and thought you suggested we should just implement tariffs, as opposed to counter-tarrifs (not sanctions like you said). I think I haven't had enough sleep..

To shreds you say

What a windbag..

They should just put him on a boat on the North Sea, floating in front of a couple of windmills. That way we can supply Europe with all the clean reliable renewable power we need, and then some.

The headline is a bit misleading. Trump agreed to the ABC debate if Harris agrees to the Fox debate.
This is just a ploy for him to either get Harris to show up on Fox, or if she doesn't debate him on Fox, spin it in such a way that Harris is somehow not wanting to debate him (Even though she never agreed to a Fox debate)

Okay.. So he went to Russia in 2003. Considering that the consensus in 2003 was that Russia was still on its way to becoming a democracy I am not that offended by it personally.
"Putin's hometown" being St. Petersburg, which is the 2nd biggest city in Russia.

What is more worrying is all the things that happened since 2003.

To me the idea of "fuck cars" is not so much about cars as a concept, but rather the scurge of car dependency.
You don't want a society built around cars to the point that you cannot reasonably live your life without one.

That said, even in a perfect situation with ample public transit and walkable/cyclable cities everywhere, there will still be people in situations who need a car to get around. And for those people I'd prefer it if they would be driving around in compacts like this or smaller, rather than some of the cross-overs, SUVs and pickups you see today.

Some people will always need a car, and practical compacts like this would be perfect for that role.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that retroactively applies to things that happened before the ToS got updated.

So 23andMe would still be open to lawsuits for the previous breach

Just wait till Musk learns about banking regulations.
He's already complaining about the EU regulations on social media, but they nothing compared to what banks have to deal with.

From what I understand this change will retroactively apply to games released in the past as well. I think that's a rather scummy move on Unity's part. "I've altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it further."

And it's not like game devs have been using a free product. They already pay for it through expensive licenses per developer.

If the justification on Unity's part is true, that for each install of a Unity game the runtime environment needs to be downloaded from their servers, then maybe they should look into fixing that rather than nickle and diming their customers for each individual install (customers in this case being the game developers)