In an uncontrolled study, it disproves nothing. The data could be a result of gun proliferation reducing crime. The data could just as well be a result of gun proliferation increasing crime, only for those crime levels to be affected more strongly downwards by some other independent cause. You can't simply plot a bunch of statistics and call it a day. You have to exhaustively search through a large enough data set to definitively isolate that single variable amongst all others.

If you find "stop, drop, and roll" ineffective while someone is pouring gasoline on you, you haven't disproven the technique, you're merely found one situation in which other factors are overriding it.

Nothing I have said disagrees with that wiki article.

FTFM...

Yes, that is incorrect. They experience positive camber, as the load on the outer wheel causes the top of the outer wheel to flex outward. As explained, negative camber is never desirable. The only reason to configure your suspension for negative camber is so that when turning, loads on your suspension bring your wheel back to neutral camber for maximum traction.

Actually, you have it backwards. They're generating body roll inward, so instead of feeling lateral Gs from the turn, the driver experiences positive Gs. The driver feels that the car is not turning as hard.

That's not accurate. Cars have their best traction when at neutral camber, meaning the surface of the tire is flat against the surface of the road. In a turn, the outside tire will be loaded more heavily than the inside, and will tend to lean towards positive camber. Thus, if you "pre-stress" the suspension with negative camber, such that lateral load in the corner increases the tire to neutral camber, you will gain traction.

Of course, setting up your suspension for negative camber will make your tire wear poorly, so you really need tires that are designed to be used with negative camber, and will result in poor grip when not turning, so doing it on anything that is not explicitly a track car is just stupid.

Of course it has nothing to do with feeling like you're in a performance vehicle. It has to do with being more comfortable, and we are more comfortable with positive Gs than lateral Gs.

And more than half a ton lighter.

Just banking the car does not mean the car's tires will experience any less lateral Gs, or be able to sustain any greater lateral Gs. Cornering performance will not change.

Yes. ABS is the answer, all the time. You don't just stomp your brakes like an idiot because you have ABS. You still "threshold brake" as close as possible. ABS allows you to operate much closer to that threshold, as it recovers much more quickly when you exceed it.

No they can't, because the threshold is continuously changing, there is no way to accurately know the position of that threshold, and once you cross the threshold, you have to drop way off to get back down below it. Operating it digitally is the only way to ensure you regain grip and maintain braking performance. It's a similar principle as to why it's easier to break AC than DC. You can build DC circuit breakers, but you need a lot of circuitry to provide that zero quench that AC experiences natively.

So in other words, it works on magic... If they're able to generate a force without incurring a counter force, then why the fuck are we even bothering with wheels? They've invented a reactionless drive system. Get these people to NASA, stat!

All cars lean. The design of the suspension just decides how much it leans.

In this case, hackers. The crackers are on necessary if there is some form of protection on the car's control data bus preventing you from manipulating it yourself. Such buses typically have no protection but physical.

The OP was talking about another petroleum cycle to produce fuel for another round of intelligent organism to use. Hopefully your retirement plans are finalized before that several hundred million year process has completed.