Your entire elaborate argument is based on a false premise.

As I said, the road damage is exponential with the weight. It is proportional to the axle weight to the fourth power.

Fuel economy is roughly linear with weight, or even less than linear (big rigs get much better MPG per ton than smaller vehicles). Therefore, fuel taxes don't begin to recover the extra costs of heavier vehicles.

Who has made the stupidest argument you've ever heard now? You might look in the mirror.

Your hypotheses that road damage is caused solely by the pressure on the top few millimeters of the road is highly questionable. The Prius is not going to be pounding down through the structure of the concrete nearly as much as your super-duty pickup hauling a huge boat.

I do agree that big rigs should be paying drastically more in fees than they do. However, industry lobbyists will always trump common sense.

Since road damage is exponentially proportional to vehicle weight, heavier trucks *should* be paying more in fees.

My first cynical thought was "shoot them down if they blow up". But one bomber claimed to be on board, so they could have reasonably been concerned that the planes would be hijacked and used as missiles.

Yeah. If you make threats on Slashdot you get picked up by men in white coats instead of black helicopters.

Normal in a race.

"Closed course. Professional driver. Do not attempt."

Looks like you need to get a bumper sticker with Calvin pissing on a Honda.

Your car is trying to tell you that you're about to roll it.

You do realize that most cars sold in the last couple of decades have computers that can override your inputs and monkey around with your brakes whenever you're trying to speed up or slow down the vehicle?

It means no one had died yet, as far as they know.

Used to be that in a democracy we will weight the facts and then vote on a decision.

Huh? That's never been the case.

All the while enabling decades of bike shed arguments about brace formatting and countless bugs due to optional braces (because they are under-constrained).

It was a single expression after the print. Python allows him indent it any way he wants to. He could have arranged the expression into a variety of pretty cascaded tree shapes similar to lisp code (especially if he slapped one more set of parens around the whole thing), and Python would have parsed it just fine. Leaving it on one line works just as well, as would random indentation.

Python's block indentation rules applies only to statements.