You've got this 100% backwards. Deciding to drive slower than everyone else makes you a much bigger risk than the people driving the same speed. If the speed at which most drivers are comfortable on a road is too high for safety the road system itself (which includes signage and surroundings) has been designed incorrectly and should be corrected.

People who didn't want their car stolen again asked for that feature. Feel lucky that you didn't have need of it before it existed.

Or maybe we're just familiar with past disasters and a more or less complete lack of the sort of scenario you imagine. I know it's fun to pretend that everyone else is evil and coming to hurt you -- that's the plot of more or less every zombie movie -- but in real life it's just not much a threat compared to say, dehydration.

A lot of people would be excited to have $1.5k to spend on their vacation. Your plan sounds great for you, but it's hardly generally applicable. Even ignoring the costs, most people who live in dense urban areas wouldn't be able to park the thing anywhere useful.

So which differences in skin tone, height, and facial features uniquely define the races? If you start with the assumption that race is a physical, heritable trait this work might make sense. But if you want to be take seriously you first have to establish that claim, and thus far no one has done so (nor is anyone honestly trying, as definitions of race are not stable across cultures or time, which almost certainly means they aren't physical in the first place).

You might want to re-read the quotations from the article: “Our findings do not even provide a hint of support in favor of Wade’s guesswork.”

That is not the same as saying "I didn't publish those conclusions" -- it's a rebuttal that the conclusions he makes are supported by the evidence he provides, from one of the foremost authorities on that evidence. You can claim that the original authors are lying if you want, but they aren't making the sort of wishy-washy statements you describe.

As soon as you come up with a heritable definition for race you can start on your analysis of heritable differences in relation to race. But historically we can't even come up with racial definitions that are stable across cultures and over a few generations, let alone that are heritable on the scale of evolution, which makes the whole discussion nothing more than handwaving.

Which has essentially nothing to do with the way most people -- scientist and layman alike -- define and delineate race. Which is the objection the scientists are raising.

I can't tell from your post what agenda you think these PC-police have, or what science you think they are suppressing. Could you make an actual refutable claim rather than merely implying that your unexpressed viewpoint is supported by science?

You really should publish the work you've done identifying IQ as a physical aspect of the brain, and identifying the genetic definitions of "white" and and "Asian". I'm sure the relationships are clear to you but the rest of us are stuck in a world where race is more social than genetic and IQ is merely one particular measure of a combination of dynamic mental processes.

Or maybe you just didn't take up the required reading before claiming that actual scientists are ignoring their work in pursuit of some globally-unified set of politics.

Or it could be that the power-cycle stresses actually aren't a big factor, or aren't a big factor given the expected lifecycle of the device, or are a big factor but not big enough to offset the savings, and so it would make perfect sense to turn them off any time you're fairly sure it's safe to add the delay of a boot cycle. It's also possible that reducing power usage might be worth more than the pure cost of power, as it might reduce say, expected future power costs or installation costs or any of 100 other things.

We get it, there are lots of potentially complicating issues. But it's silly to talk about how factor B might overwhelm factor A when you don't have numbers for factor B.

Insurance, though, is strongly regulated, precisely because of the sort of difficulties discussed here. You can't form an arbitrary insurance contract; the insurer must be licensed and the contract must conform to a whole slew of extra rules not applicable to contracts in general.

I've never understood the problem with vote selling. I mean, I think it poorly serves the people selling their votes, but if the most important issue to them is who will give them $10, why isn't that a valid choice? All sorts of people make voting decisions based on their expected personal economic outcomes, and this doesn't seem any different to me.

It's also unclear to me how putting the election online makes vote selling easier. If anything I'd expect that would make it harder, as you have to try harder to distribute the payouts.

But maybe I'm not understanding the process and harms of vote selling. Anyone want to disabuse me?

Demographic restrictions are doom for a plan like this. There's a reason we don't allow housing discrimination and I don't see why we'd want to suspend those rules in an emergency; if anything they seem more important when people are in desperate need.

Who told you they'd be doing this for months? We're talking about an alternative to emergency housing like the Superdome -- which was occupied for only 6 days during Katrina. Even if you added the Reliant Dome occupancy it's still only 18 days until the domes were clear and the vast majority of people were in permanent housing.