One key to happiness for me is to start from the assumption that I’ve been unclear.

This feels like reading a language that you only kinda know.

Ok so in defense of dumbasses, we don’t always understand the question. Eg, whose left? In those cases we don’t want to make your clarify the question and drag things out, so we give you what we hope is an unequivocally clear response. It comes from a deep-seeded fear of miscommunication resulting in too many mailboxes with their flags on the wrong side or whatever. We apologize for the pedantry, though. I get that it’s annoying.

Lol. That one makes me strip a gear.

Although completely reasonable, I fear that your conclusion is inaccessible for most folks.

And as a pedestrian, I’m all for a system that’s capable of reducing distracted driving.

Agreed. I’m just pointing out that people need to focus on the latter rather than the former.

That’s the part that I don’t think is a strong argument though. They were crying fraud long before the election, e.g., saying that mail-in ballots were illegal, claiming people were stuffing drop-off, etc. None of it was valid, but their argument was well established before election day.

Ah ok. Thank you. I think I was getting stuck on the timing, which did not seem particularly relevant.

Except weren’t they were claiming that mail-in ballots were potentially fraudulent for months before the election? This video doesn’t disprove anything if they claimed that ballots that had already been cast were illegal.

I’ve only heard that second one in Swedish. I don’t know if it’s originates from Sweden, but it rhymes.