That only applies where people tailgate.

And yet they choose an appropriate speed.

[citation needed]

a rapid slowdown is often the cause of accidents (as we see with red light cameras)

This is why we need tailgating cameras.

In other words, it isn't the rapid slowdown that causes the collision, it's the excessively close following distance ("driving on a road too close to a frontward vehicle, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible"). That's why hard braking is legal while tailgating is not.

just exists as an extra tax on the unwary

People know they aren't supposed to speed, so it's really a tax on bad driving. Then people will drive more safely, and those who don't will pay more in taxes so you don't need to. That's two benefits for the price of one, and who doesn't like two-for-one deals?

1. I suspect even the author couldn't tell you whether it's .04 to .07 cents or dollars per GiB.

2. By my math it's $279/6144=$0.05 to $479/6144=$0.08 per GiB, not $0.04 to $0.07.

3. Why are we using GiB when hard drive capacities are expressed in GB/TB?

No, CA is not "mostly desert". Not even close.

Especially when you consider that "before California's massive flood control and aqueduct system was built, the annual snow melt turned much of the [central] valley into an inland sea.."

Problem with body cams is the same as with dash cams - somehow they'll either be conveniently turned off, or facing the wrong way, when an officer is accused of wrongdoing.

And because body cams are turned off when the evidence can be used against the officer but on when the evidence can be used against the people, body cams only give the police more power. That makes them worse than nothing, at least until their footage is automatically backed up to the cloud, permanently archived (incapable of being erased), and available to anyone with a FOIA request.

Just look at NC... "I"-540 south of I-40 is a toll road ("T-540"), and there's almost no one ever on it.

If that's the case, then they aren't setting the price of freeway travel at market equilibrium like I suggested. Instead, they're setting the price above market equilibrium.

By that logic, GDP would peak if we paved over all the land with roads and parking lots and removed all the stores, factories, and office buildings.

No, I think GDP would peak long before then. We may already be past that point.

Unless they share the cost with everyone else on the bus.

Yes, I think given a choice between an uncongested freeway or residential streets that take 2-3 times as long to navigate, people will mostly choose the freeway, even if it costs money.

if you do just that half, it will lead to lower GDP.

Are you sure that lowering our taxes as I suggested would lower GDP?

Or ask them to eliminate the shortage of freeway road space for the number of people who want to use it at the same time, by setting the price of freeway travel at market equilibrium and adjusting the price by the hour to achieve permanent free-flow. With the freeway running smoothly 24/7 and nobody ever being overcharged to use it, fewer people will seek out alternatives. At the same time, eliminating the price ceiling on freeway travel will provide a revenue source that can be used to lower your taxes. So that's two benefits for the price of one, and who doesn't like 2-for-1 deals?

Totalitarian government, whether it gets sold to the people as "Communist" or "Fascist" or whatever the next excuse will be to give central government ever more power always comes from the left.

Except when it benefits Big Oil, then that fascism (actually, dirigism, which is close enough) comes from the right. Unless you can name one right wing politician who opposes minimum parking requirements?

I use this example because such requirements take away our freedom and property rights while benefiting Big Oil by inducing people to drive everywhere.

It's interesting how the left errs on the side of the poor while the right errs on the side of the wealthy.