This test track is the Autobahn A9, one of the most used Autobahns in Germany, connecting Berlin and Munich, largest and third largest german city.

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.

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?

You probably could even get the BMW turbo engine street legal with lots of exhaust filtering, but that was not the point I was trying to make. Yes, the BMW engine was consuming immense amounts of gas, it was extremely noisy, and it would a bad idea to build it into a normal street car, as it had a high probability to break within the next 1000 miles.

But in general, getting more sheer power out of a certain engine size or configuration is not so much of an engineering problem (e.g. just add lots of chargers, and don't forget the cooling). It's more of a design decision if you want to have better all day behaviour and more stability under load, or if you want more impressive data sheet numbers. You surely can tune the Bugatti W16 to put out 1300 or 1400 hp and still being street legal, but what's the point? Koenigsegg decided to go a more extreme route, getting more power out of their engine, knowing well that their cars won't be used in the daily commute anyway.

It gets even worse. BMW got 1300 HP out of a 1.5 litre 4cyl in 1986. It was the "qualification" setting on their Formula 1 race engines for the Brabham team built into the Brabham BT55.

That's akin to say that until we have all the results from all supporting structures in a crumbling building, we shouldn't start to evacuate.

Global Warming is a fact. The last year was globally the warmest on record, and the next 10 warmest years on record were all in the last 20 years.

So the Earth surface is indeed getting warmer since the times we started to record it, which goes back in some regions to the 18th century. If the average temperature of the Earth's surface is getting warmer (which it does at least since we started to measure it), and if it is happening globally, there is good reason to call it Global Warming.

That there can be local warming that is even larger, or that there are locations which are colder on average now than they were when we started to record temperatures, is quite possible. The region I live in has gotten 2 K warmer on average since the begin of the records (which were somewhere around 1760, thus encompassing the whole era of Industrialization), much larger than the 0.7 K on average we measure globally. So there surely are regions which warmed less than 0.7 K on average.

This is a fact you can read at NOAA or whatever organisations keep record of local and global temperatures.

Where the theorizing starts is if this trend continues in the future, and what causes the Global Warming. But the single fact that the Earth's surface got warmer globally and on average is no hypothesis, is a fact we have measurements of.

And those facts the jury votes one are (or should be) worth nil, if new evidence pops up that contradicts it. Then people get exonerated for crimes they didn't commit, and the former conviction is vindicated.

No, he claimed that the temperature of the Venus' atmosphere at "earthly" conditions, e.g. at a pressure of about 1 bar (somewhere 100,000 feet above the Venus surface) is, after correcting for the distance to the Sun, the same as on Earth.

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.