Give you one guess.

Is Uber saying no? Or are drivers cancelling rides when they realize there’s an animal that wasn’t disclosed previously, and they aren’t part of Uber Pets?

Because there’s a distinct difference there.

But it’s up to the driver whether to allow an animal in their personal vehicle.

It’s not about training. People lie, and there is no way to verify service animals. Lying about pets and claiming they are service animals is already an issue for places like restaurants and hotels.

if Uber requires all drivers to allow pets, then so be it. But that’s the only way to ensure consistency.

That does happen, usually that’s more how traditional cabs operate, and even then in many places they own the cab and contract to a company for fares.

The vast majority of rideshare drivers in the US use their own vehicle.

First off, FUCK UBER… but I don’t see Uber being at any sort of fault here unless their policy is no animals, which it obviously isn’t because Uber Pet exists. Only possibly by not routing service animal rides through Uber Pet exclusively since those drivers are already expecting animals.

Do we really want to say that in order to participate in rideshare driving at all that you must allow animals in your private vehicle?

Uber drivers use their own vehicles, they are not Uber’s property or responsibility. If an owner doesn’t want animals in their vehicle, they cannot and should not be forced to. A lot of people don’t want animals in their vehicles, trained or not. They may be worried about damage from things like claws to the fabrics, etc. and don’t want to deal with that possibility, whereas the Uber Pet drivers are prepared for that.

And this doesn’t even get into the bastards that lie about their pets and “emotional support” animals being service animals causing problems for those that actually do need the assistance. There’s no penalty for lying about it, and no verification system to filter those out.

It’s a reach that the state is effectively run by the Mormon church? And that should be taken into account as relevant context when the Governor makes statements? Seriously?

You seem to also ignore the context that Utah is essentially a Mormon-run state. And the Mormons there actively villify and expel anyone that refuses to accept their doctrine.

It’s never as simple as the words being said when politics or religion are involved. And here it’s both in spades.

He’s right, just not about the right topics.

Things like the TSA changes post 9/11 are primarily security theater, ineffective security requirements that make it seem like it makes you safer while just being a waste of time.

Most of the changes in the Patriot Act removed citizen rights for “security” yet have resulted in very little else apart from removing those rights.

You seem to misunderstand. We don’t negotiate. We supply them because they’re killing people we want killed, or we blow them up.

Sandy Hook didn’t bring change because they don’t care about protecting children. They do care about protecting themselves however.

Political violence is of course bad… but as soon as you call for it, especially indirectly, you deserve whatever comes to you. Stochastic terrorism is still terrorism, and there’s not a lot more American than the fact we don’t negotiate with terrorists.

The Guardian article linked in the OP does have context.

No one is saying it’s proof of trafficking. But it does show they joked about it, and casually enough to even scrapbook it.

The note is written by a third person, Joel Pashcow, not Trump or Epstein.

I mean with the WSJ they’re right wing and billionaire class suck ups. Putting out just enough softball articles to point to and try to say they aren’t. They always leave relevant information out when it’s inconvenient.

Encrypted mail is 100% a thing. And it is definitely used by medical personnel to send information securely.

But email is not encrypted by default, and isn’t as simple as checking a box in Yahoo or Gmail to do so.

There’s an accompanying note in the book that makes it clear that’s not the case at all. The redacted info in these documents are almost entirely the names and images of victims. There’s no reason to redact information related to winning money from a tournament, and that definitely doesn’t fit with the note.

Jeffrey showing early talents with money + women! Sells “fully depreciated” REDACTED to Donald Trump for $22,500. Showed early “people skills” too. Even though I handled the deal I didn’t get any of the money or the girl!

The same bullshit as telling people to limit their showers to save water during a drought instead of having agriculture switch to crops that need less water. Because the people using 15% of the water are definitely going to make a dent when the other 85% don’t give a shit.