The biggest thing I miss from CRTs is the ability to dim them below "actually still pretty bright". The only LCD I've seen that actually gets fairly dark is the one on my camera.

Incidentally, I should point out that wind chill, as it's measured in the US, tries to incorporate effects other than just an increase in the rate at which the warmed air is swept away from something warm by the wind. Those effects, e.g. facts dealing with the fact that your skin is wet and the air is dry, will not apply to solar panels.

Wind chill does not affect inanimate objects. Yes they might cool down to the ambient temperature faster but they will never go lower than the ambient temperature regardless of the wind speed.

The second half of the second sentence doesn't imply the first sentence. If you have something heated to above ambient (e.g. a structure meant for living), a wind chill absolutely will cause you to spend more heating it.

"Wind chill won't cool thing below the actual temperature" is (almost) a solid statement. "Wind chill does not affect inanimate objects" is a BS way of overgeneralizing that into falsehood.

She was told 'no' because she went through a carefully thought out and vetted process designed to deal with a very limited supply of a very important item (an organ). The parents decided to escalate the issue and brought the courts in - which was completely inappropriate (if understandable). This was a 'think of the cute little child' moment and had nothing to do with 'death panels' or rationing.

Exactly. The courts got involved, and saved the girl's life. But what about the person who they thus killed who otherwise was going to get that organ? (Or maybe person #4 on the list, who was going to get the organ that #3 wound up getting because person #2 wound up getting the organ that #3 was going to get because #1 got the organ that #2 was gonna get because the girl got the organ that #1 was gonna get.)

If your example is meant to be illustrating how the courts were correcting the "death panels" taht set the guidelines by which she was denied... how does that not make the courts just the new death panels?

I'm not going to Bush's fault you. What I will say was that all the "omg death panels" nonsense was presented as if there was some change from the current status quo, or at least without saying "omg this moves the death panels from the companies to the gov't! oh noes!" It was presented as if the death panels were an argument against gov't health care, while that argument would then equally (or, arguably, more, as private health care has a direct profit motive and government health care can at least pretend to not) apply to "we should scrap the current system."

Two more pros:
- Blind people can vote unassisted
- Theoretically should have absolutely no tabulation error

I can hear some people saying "It forces suspense in the game! You don't know when the next safe place is!".

What I think would be an ideal compromise if you want to make a game that you can only save at checkpoints is to allow saves anywhere, but you can only ever load an arbitrary save once. It suffices for the "I need to take a break" use case while still preventing save scumming, which I'd argue can definitely have implications beyond personal well just don't save if you don't like it "ethics".

The question equally applies to games on any even remotely-recent console...

I am not sure. It's possible there aren't any competing cars that are compatible with the Tesla. They could easily enough put into place some DRM-style stuff.

Yes.

The energy costs are probably almost non-existent compared to the installation costs for the superchargers (IIRC, many or all of them need dedicated substations), Tesla has a lot of room to play with because of how expensive their cars are, and it's a nice sales draw to say "hey you don't even have to worry about the hassle of paying."

There are Tesla superchargers frequent enough along all of I-80. You're still going to make mediocre time, but it is doable without spending weeks.

It's possible to have charging stops that are barely more inconvenient than fill ups.

"Much less than hours" is still a long way from "barely more inconvenient than fill ups." Even with superchargers, you're looking at multiple stops during a day's drive that are longer than any stop I make when on a road trip. Under harsh but realistic conditions, you could be looking at a 40-minute supercharge every 2 to 2 1/2 hours; that's downright bad.

To get to "barely more inconvenient than fill ups" I think that you either need battery swaps or you need charges that are (1) almost twice as fast as a supercharger, (2) placed better in certain cases*, (3) need to have a guaranteed low or no wait, and (4) need better coverage**.

* In particular, on toll roads they "need "to be accessible without exiting, which they are not, at least looking at my usual trip from WI to PA/NY.

** Even on Tesla's "end of 2015" planned locations on their website, there is no charging station along I-86 in southern NY. Stations in the plains states are widely-spaced. There's essentially no coverage away from interstates.

Insurance companies will protect us (selfishly) frmo this being taken too far.

Or they'll just raise rates by $100/6mth and what are you going to do... not have a car?

Though actually, if hypothetically CF is able to dissipate energy in a useful way better than crumpling metal, it could hypothetically reduce injuries enough that the total cost of accidents decrease even if lots of CF needs to be replaced. I'm a bit skeptical of that, but it's certainly true that it's not hard to rack up enough medical bills to make even a brand-new car look cheap...

One thing I'd be curious/worried about is cracking CF vs denting aluminum. In other words, suppose something happens that will cause some cosmetic dents in aluminum skin -- say dimples from hail. (This happened my car.) With an aluminum skin, I don't even need to get it repaired. I'll look silly, but as long as the car is mine that's the only ill effect I'll suffer.

But how much more would it take before that dent became a crack that would need to be repaired because otherwise it would let in rain, or perhaps even compromise the safety of the car in some way? And could it even be repaired as opposed to replacing the whole panel, as you mention?

The damages paid in the settlement are 1/30 as large as they should be

Well, as large as they hypothetically could(?) be if it went to trial and the plaintiffs won and the judge decided to stick it to the defendants. Not every trial does or should result in the maximum verdict.

The amount of money the companies have simply indicates that they would be able to pay the full amount, and that it doesn't make sense to settle for less

It also makes sense to settle as a risk management strategy. Defendants settle to avoid the risk of a guilty verdict* that will cost more, and plaintiffs settle to avoid the risk of a not guilty verdict that will at best get them nothing and at worst sic them with legal bills.

* I don't know if civil trials technically use the "guilty"/"not guilty" terms; probably they do not.