Tesla has recently begun implementing a Congestion Fee system at some Superchargers, with substantially increased rates for charging above e.g. 80% battery capacity, precisely to address this problem. I suppose we'll find out over the next few months how effective it is.

Incorrect. A significant majority of carriers never develop symptoms.

For those parents at the highest risk, IVF and embryonic screening would be a far more reasonable and ethical way to maximize the risk of healthy children. There are many genes potentially involved, and their relative interactions and contributions are not yet precisely known. It's also possible that some of the T1D-correlated genes may have undiscovered population-level benefits that have allowed them to persist in the gene pool, as is the case with e.g. sickle-cell anemia. (A single copy of the sickle-cell gene provides malaria resistance.)

Wiping out or creating vaccines for the viral diseases known to be common triggers of T1D autoimmunity (e.g. coxsackievirus and to some extent Sars-Cov-2) would be another helpful approach. Preventive therapies like teplizumab would be another, combined with routine childhood screening. (My daughter was recently diagnosed with T1D at age 4; and we have no family history and no known genetic risk factors per 23andMe.) Eugenics would be by far the most blunt, least ethical, least practical, and most despotic approach to solving this problem.

Gyroscopic flywheels should work quite well to damp out transient loads like people moving around. And thrusters could assist if the flywheels saturate.

Here's how I would envision a crewed Starship Mars mission: Send the Starships in pairs, rendezvousing shortly after trans-Mars insertion. Tether them nose-to-nose with a ~300m Xylon tether, using the catch arms as attachment points. (They're already designed for precisely this load.) Spin up to ~1G near Earth, tapering to Mars gravity on arrival. This arrangement provides redundancy; each Starship would serve as a lifeboat for its companion. Coriolis forces should be small enough to be non-problematic, and it would solve all the pesky living-in-zero-G problems. Payload could be distributed to stabilize the spin axis. The thrust required to spin up and down could even be timed/pulsed to double as course-correction maneuvers, so there should be practically no wasted propellant. Spin down and un-tether on arrival, and on landing you now have 300 meters of useful Xylon to play with, so it's not even wasted payload.

It's not "You will not pass," nor "You shall not pass." The original line from Tolkien was: "You cannot pass."

1610612736k ought to be enough for anybody.

What about the risk of Dwarfism?

Well no, it could have scored a near direct hit on Jupiter (or another planet), thereby becoming gravitationally captured by the Sun.

Please read it again. It was the high 6700K color temperature (i.e. not f.lux) that reduced good sleep, while the 3000K color temperature (e.g. f.lux) increased good sleep. This means f.lux is good for sleep.

Granted that it wasn't statistically significant, perhaps due to a small sample size, but the measured effect was in the direction of f.lux (blocking blue light) being good for sleep. They emphatically did not find that f.lux was bad for sleep.

You are misunderstanding the experiment. The subjects worked from 11pm to midnight, then took a break from midnight to 1am, then worked again from 1am to 2am. Being exposed to f.lux-like light during the hour break made them sleepier. So yes, obviously, f.lux is bad for staying awake if you're trying to stay awake. But the direct implication is that f.lux is good for going to sleep if you're trying to go to sleep. So again, f.lux is good (for its intended purpose, which is to use it before sleep).

No, this means f.lux is good for sleep. "Attenuated" means reduced. High color temperatures (i.e. not f.lux) reduced good sleep, compared to lower color temperatures (e.g. f.lux).

No, this means f.lux is good for sleep. The "dark control condition" was the orange-tinted glasses, creating f.lux-like conditions. The "blue-light goggle" condition was a goggle that _added_ blue light, the opposite of f.lux. Read the abstract again.

No, this means f.lux is good for sleep. Lower color temperature (e.g. f.lux) made people more sleepy.

No one sells f.lux. f.lux is free software. I am happy to link to it here: www.justgetflux.com

20%, not 30%. Wind resistance increases with the cube of speed, but energy-per-mile efficiency (assuming all energy is spent fighting wind resistance) is only squared. That's because you spend less time driving a given distance at higher speed.

The Tesla P100D's dual motors combine for 760 horsepower, which would be more than enough to sustain 200mph+ with proper gearing and tires. By comparison, a Lamborghini Gallardo achieves a top speed of 202mph with just 562 horsepower. The Tesla's motors redline at about 16000rpm, which at the 9.7:1 fixed gearing ratio corresponds to about 155mph. If the gearing ratio were halved, the low-speed acceleration would reduce but the top speed would go up dramatically.

True, at 200mph the P100D battery pack would only be good for about 40 miles. But gas supercars don't do much better. At top speed, a Bugatti Veyron can burn through an entire 26-gallon tank of gas in just 12 minutes (51 miles).

Or to Exxon Mobil for oil exploration. That'd get people to move their cars!

So if we're hypothesizing replacing all ICE vehicles with EVs, we need 30x as many Supercharger plug-in spaces as there currently are gas pumps along major highways.

Taking into account both home-charging and destination-charging, I think you're right back down to 1x. On top of that, charging speeds will only ever get faster over the next 5-10 years. So there will likely never need to be as many EV supercharging spots as there are gas pumps now.

I interviewed for a high-level engineering position at Google last year at age 42, and was hired. Just saying.

two of which resulted in fatalities.

Sigh. One of the crashes resulted in one fatality. The other two crashes, no fatalities. (And it is not yet known whether Autopilot was engaged at the time of those two incidents.)

Getting distracted with Autopilot engaged is like removing your seatbelt because you have airbags. You may be able to occasionally get away with it, but it's still an incredibly dumb thing to do. (And the former endangers other drivers, not just yourself.) The silver lining of these incidents is that maybe more drivers will start paying more attention while using AP, though it should have been up to Tesla to properly instill this sense of caution to begin with.

And side skirts/guards should really be mandated for trailers nationwide. (They're already mandated in California.) It may not physically prevent an underride at high speed, but it doesn't have to; the radar is much more likely to detect them and trigger collision-avoidance braking. It's only a small patch for a small part of the problem, but better than not patching it at all.

As a Tesla owner myself (albeit a pre-Autopilot version), I am as shocked and saddened as anyone else by this incident. Obviously we don't know for sure that he was watching a movie, or even that he wasn't paying attention. For all we know he might have been paying full attention, but fully assumed the autopilot would brake, "froze" when it didn't, and failed to brake himself. Possible but unlikely. (Especially for a Navy Seal.) I'm sure we'll learn more as the investigation continues.

Why People Freeze

In the more likely scenario that the driver was distracted, my line above was just a way of emphasizing that even with autopilot, it's critically important to watch the road at all times. (Just as it's important to wear a seatbelt at all times, even though removing it usually has no consequences.) I meant the line in a somber, wry way, not in a fozzie-bear laugh-out-loud way. (if that helps.)