I'm not sure you understood the GP's point. In fact you seem to have interpreted it completely backwards.

Allowing the companies making the loans to go bust, rather than trying to protect them by not allowing Student Loans to be cleared by bankruptcy is the attenuation that you are looking for. It's sends a clear message to other companies loaning money that there are risks and that they should be filtering potential customers.

If economists had known in advance of one of the great depressions that it was going to happen, and releasing the results would of only sped-up the collapse, should they release the information?

The earlier the bubble is burst, the small the correction needs to be and the quicker the recovery afterwards can be. Knowing a burst will happen, it is ethical to make the information public as quickly as possible.

The tricky bit comes when you are 55% sure of a crash, but knowing that making those fears known publicly will definitely cause a crash. How sure do you need to be before it is worth causing a small crash to offset the chance of a bigger crash later on? 60%, 70%, 80%?

I would have thought that lack of crime was the goal of any law enforcement, not number of arrests. Although number of arrests is certainly an easier number to work out.

except that the idea of foreign workers being prefered over domestic, regardless of the reason, is a widely held believe.

Evidence that that is not the case would be just as worthy of publication

The number of brainfucks in Washington could be turned to our advantage.

We only need to introduce a single letter typo into a funding bill and for the brainfucks to not notice.

If there's a big bias against Americans in the results, publicize the heck out of it.

Regardless of the outcome, publicize the heck out of it. You don't get to hide the results just because they don't confirm your pre-existing bias.

Do you stand to gain, directly or indirectly, any benefit either personally, professionally, or politically, by whatever is being whistle blown on?

That is an extremely wide difinition.

Anyone whistle blowing is doing it because they want something changed, whether that is an improved working environment or a social/political change. That means they are indirectly benefitting and therefore by your definition no whistleblower is a whistleblower.

There will still be plenty of tickets to write for a long time, as until we are at 100% adoption, people will still break trafic laws

I'd imagine there is a network effect which would dramatically reduce traffic violations even with a realtively small proportion of fully automous vehicles on the road.

You can't speed if the car in front is doing 3 mph below the speed limit, you can't run the red light if the car in front is already slowing down for the amber. As the proportion of automous vehicles increases, people will get used a more conservative driving style and their driving style will change to compensate.

I don't know the proportion of traffic which would have to be automous to have an affect, but it will be far less than 100%

If we introduce life it becomes much harder to say any life we find in the future isn't just contamination we brought with us.

Without a LOT if energy input, you'll never create the fuel.

I can't work out if you are agreeing with the GP or failing to understand his point.

His

sentence is saying it's just a way of producing fuel, it's not a source of energy.

Long charging times for electric vehicles stop any journey where the trip is greater than the battery range. Who wants to have to stop for hours to get a full battery when you are trying to get somewhere.

Liquid fuels can refuel most vehicles in 10 minutes, and half of that time is queuing and paying. Electric vehicles will have match that capability at some point or they are going to be forever stuck in the niche of toys and glorified shopping carts.