In order for such orders to be useful they need to be easy to get wothout evidence. However because they must be easy to get falsely the effect must be limited to the minimum needed and they cannot destory someones life.
The windows phone was not out for very long. It is unknown if it would have succeed, but at the time Android was an also ran as well, and non-smart phones still dominated. Blackberry was still a major player to beat at the time. Windows if they stuck with it might have done reasonably well. It would never have become a monopoly, but we cannot know how well it would have done.
They have failed one of their code jobs: validating advertisements are legitimate. I don't know why any legitimate company would advertise with google as you get associated with the scams they allow on their ad platform.
Mining is responsible for more CO2 than the rest of manufacturing. We also do use renewables for aluminum - there is enough energy required that energy cost is a big deal and so production is done in areas where energy is cheap - generally meaning geothermo.
In the US they would, unless they get an exception (which generally means they are not cars and cannot be used on roads, though there are other ways to get an exception: none would apply to anything mass market)
I'd prefer to keep the numbers the same, but change the rules so that a light truck/suv is only different from a car if it is used as a truck. Use as a truck means that that the value is based on mechanical condition and engine hours only. Cosmetic damage does not count, and an independent mechanical is needed to evaluate mechanical condition. This won't stop sales of Trucks/SUVs, but it will end leasing and renting - if you lease/rent a truck, fill it with boulders (which will put dents in the bed as they roll around) they cannot charge you damages, and on lease return are required to sell it for the same price as a truck that was used only for driving unloaded (or if discount it, the sales tax is as if it was in mint condition). Or drive it off road and dent the fenders sliding into trees and scratch the paint else where - no extra cost when you return it at the end of the lease/rental. Want to tow, that is normal for a truck so they can't say anything about you drilling holes for a hitch (so long as they don't affect the mechanical ability - if the truck comes with standard holes they can say don't drill, otherwise drilling is required and assumed okay)
Suddenly you could buy a truck as a truck, or a passenger car that looks like a truck. The truck will go for a lower price, but you will have to buy it (possibly under different credit terms as they less want to reposes it given you may do cosmetic damage). The car will be more expensive because they have to pay CAFE fines. Insurance on the truck will be cheaper: they won't fix hail damage, and if in an accident they will fix the lights but leave all the other dents. (if the other guys fault their insurance will not fix dents). People who actually need a truck for work purposes won't care, and they are also likely doing things that can't really be done in a more fuel efficient vehicle. People who just want a car will find cars a better option again.
No party ever has been 100% a unified block. Over the years some have done better than others at getting unity, but unity itself is a strawman. The odd part is the GOP can't even unify on a leader which should be a low risk thing to unify on.
They just make a reasonable offer then. Most strikers cannot afford to last much longer - the union pays less than minimum wage for carrying signs (I haven't checked this strike, but that is typical)
I think they have been intentionally making a bad offer so the union strikes and thus production is cut while they blame it on the union to stockholders.
The wreck is owned by the insurance company who has rights to raise it. They lost a lot of money when the ship went down and would like to get it back . It's isn't cost effective to raise the wreck, but if you do anyway you are steeling from the owners.
It is a risky investment. Taking care of your kid is something where we have done it enough that we understand the risks and pay off and most parents can make a reasonable prediction. (a few kids will "turn 21 in prison doing life without parole" - but most turn out okay and return love to their parents and attempt to improve society - though you may not agree with their definition of improve society)
I have no idea if the current faults with AI will be solved or not. That is a risk you are taking. It is useful for some things, but we don't know how useful.
More people try to immigrate legally every year than the US allows. You need a lawyer and many years to immigrate legally, that isn't easy.
The only easy path is if a close family member marries an American and lives as a married couple for 20 years (you can divorce after that, but for 20 years immigration will check to ensure you really are acting like a married couple, you can fail their checks because of not doing things other married couples don't either). I wouldn't call this easy, between finding someone you could marry and live with and all the checks, but it is still easiest.
Savings is about sacrifice for today. I personally know some who are making half a million/year who are living paycheck to paycheck, while I know others making poverty income who have growing savings. It is much easier to have a "nice" life when you have more income, but living below your means is a choice that everyone could make.
somehow you have access to post your reply. Give up your internet and that would free up some money. I have no idea what else you do in life, but I'm sure there is a lot more.
In order for such orders to be useful they need to be easy to get wothout evidence. However because they must be easy to get falsely the effect must be limited to the minimum needed and they cannot destory someones life.