You can't list all the things systemd does in one line, it does not do "one thing well" ... in fact its frequently touted benefit is that it does so many things.

"How WP is run, is supposed to be decided by the community." citation please.

I don't recall this ever being true. Wikipedia is about freely contributing to something with rules and an architecture that's not always subject to democracy. You're always free to mirror it elsewhere and do your own thing any time though.

Actually if you read a lot of Wikipedia articles and history on them, the world was wrong and the system usually works.

The rules are there for a reason, and contentious subjects have issues (cf. Abortion, Israel, Nazi, etc.) but for the most part articles grow and become better and more thoroughly fact-checked with time.

Part of this is the much-hated reference requirement -- all facts in a Wikipedia page must have an external source to back them up. This rule alone causes a huge amount of strife among those who don't understand, but it also creates the most harmony by requiring reputable citations.

Its pretty easy to figure out why the page was deleted:
"Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Every source is WP:PRIMARY. Every one of them. Googling turned up posts to online discussion forums but nothing useful. Additionally, I note that the decision to delete at the previous AfD was unanimous for the same reasons. Msnicki (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)"

Wikipedia is for documenting information found somewhere else authoritative... if the Wikipedia article *is* the authority, it gets deleted. Its very simple.

You must get really confused when you look up the speed ratings on tire side walls, what with how you seem to think cars can't safely exceed 70 or 80 mph.

Take an aggressive driving course; "normal" cars are capable of some really impressive driving manoeuvres if you know what you're doing.

If a semi can do a given speed without going off the road, your properly maintained vehicle most certainly should be able to with its much lower center of gravity and better suspension.

We have quite a few municipalities in the area that reside in valleys, so the speed limit drops by nearly half part way up or down a hill in each direction. Its incredibly annoying to be going down a hill at 80 and have to drop to 50 while accelerating (gravity).

Actually here in Ontario you can be pulled over for impeding traffic if you're in the way, no matter how legal your speed was, as it should be.

Drive in the right lane, let people pass on the left. Its their business to go faster, not yours. Your responsibility as a driver is partly to stay out of everyone else's way, you're not an island out there.

A low speed limit is dangerous when it is obvious to everyone with a basic level of driving skill that they should be driving faster. Those people will then suddenly run into people driving the 'limit' around a corner or over a hill.

You could argue that nobody should ever exceed the speed limit, but that's just irrational stupidity. People will for the most part drive what seems like a safe speed for them, not accounting for over-aggressive or over-cautious drivers of course, but those are rare enough. On a given stretch of the 401 here in Ontario, you can be assured everyone is doing 120-130 even though it's posted at 100. At another point on the same highway, everyone will be driving no more than 115 because its too narrow and unsafe to go faster.

People adjust because we almost all realize that speed limits should have been updated aeons ago, when most cars now have seatbelts, air bags, ABS, traction control and high grade tires but the limits were set before all those things.

You mean the 95% of drivers who are speeding on highways without accidents? Yes, they must be stupid.

People seem to miss the opportunity for incredibly bad behaviour. What about if a company like Google starts reporting on who you want to vote for? There are a lot of reasons the post office doesn't open the mail -- and our electronic equivalents should respect that same privacy.

Agreed. Even good outcomes do not justify bad behaviour. We should not be happy that Google is perusing the content of our E-mail with anything but automated tools (for advertising, etc.)

Canada has spent over a billion dollars on genomic research in the last seven years or so, this is an interesting project but he's a bit shy of 'world leader' status with this investment.

Where's all the pro-science crowd who keeps telling us to blindly trust medical science when the stories of people (mistakenly) avoiding certain well-tested drugs come up?

The rhetoric does nothing but defeat their actual viewpoint and this is why -- bad science is being done, and it needs to be accounted for to the sceptics, no matter who insane they may seem. Bad science is the enemy of good science because it undermines trust in the system.