Also, this conversation is about backing up and parking (read what I said). When backing up you are mostly looking backwards only, so the focal length adjustment point is moot. Even if you have to switch to looking forwards, this is at low speeds / standing still, so it doesn't make a difference.
I'll restate my point with emphasis because you seem to not have read it: Cameras are infinitely more useful for backing up and parking.
Modern cameras give a way better view of what's behind and to the side of the car than you can ever achieve through mirrors. There's really no comparison. Yes, if you're comparing to older, inferior camera systems mirrors might be better, but not the modern ones.
I say this as someone who learned to drive and drove for a long time with no cameras. People saying this are just usually just used to mirrors and never bothered to take the time to learn to switch to the cameras for backwards maneuvering, or their cars just are not equiped with the latest tech.
Sometimes you want to be cooler sometimes the other way? Sometimes you want cool wind blowing in your face, sometimes you don't? Is it really that hard to grasp? lol
Also different people use the same car at different times, etc.
And that's the reason I won't. You can see yourself how insanely easy it is to find this info (you replied with one you probably found pretty quickly yourself), and yet these people who are full of quickly-formed opinions are constantly trying to offload the work onto others.
He's not doing any favors to a case that was essentially lost and dead by bringing tons of attention to it to the point where there's a chance it might actually see a positive outcome, plus a good amount of cash via GoFundMe? Sure...
Quantum physics guarantees us anything is a possibility. The question is, is it a likely one at all? And the overwhelmingly likely reasons are obvious to anyone with half a brain, given all the surrounding context here.
> False. I said that a 3rd party traveling across the country to serve papers himself and then sitting in front of the house while police are called 4 times is needless YouTube drama.
Notice how you ignore the second quote? Anyone can literally search these comments see what you said.
I guess there's not much you can do to try to argue that you're not defending the company, when you're claiming the people exposing them are just creating "drama" and are not trustworthy, so you default to just pretending you didn't say it.
This is not pancakes and waffles. This is someone putting out a video saying a corporation is poisoning pancakes, and you at the same time say "the video is not trustworthy" while trying to claim you are not defending the corporation.
> You are awfully obsessed with stalking my comment history and then misquoting what I said.
I'm not stalking your "comment history", I'm just replying to comments in this post. Again, are you incapable of factual accuracy?
Nah, the whole Guinness thing was obviously just a bit for the video. Clearly the franchise would not fall for that, when you can easily check that you were summoned to small claims (and they also probably get some form of direct communication from the court I would guess).
Legal costs for a small claims suit is tiny, and would be easily doable for them if they could win it. Again, there is a reason they lost those cases.
Sure, it's possible the serving was not done correctly. Even in that case, this does not imply, as you have claimed, that this is "just needless YouTube drama" (emphasis mine). There is clearly a lot going on beyond the obvious flashy setting which is chosen for the presentation.
Arguably, no attention would have come to this matter if not for such presentation, and the perpetrators would have just gotten away with it easily, so it is in fact understandable that things were done in such a way.
Yet you choose to ignore the way more significant issues from B&M's side and focus only on the choices of dramatization of the events, which, if a problem at all, are only marginal in comparison. While further trying to use that a way to try to in fact discredit the more relevant issue.
You go around claiming the accusations are "just needless YouTube drama" and that you "wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story". If you think this is not defending the company, then you have some basic communications difficulties.
Again, if this is your knowledge after looking it up, then refrain from commenting, as your intelectual limitations will inevitably lead you to make false claims.