The reason for the rules seems like common sense to me. There is a certain distance needed to stop or change lanes when driving at highway distance. If the truck breaks down just over a hill, cars won't see it early enough unless the warning signals are put further back where they can be seen coming up the hill.

I seriously doubt that these rules were just shit someone made up. The NHTSA has so many studies regarding road regulations and guidance. They might be outdated for modern technology, and might be worse than newer alternatives - I don't doubt that hasn't been studied yet - but I would absolutely wager that there were studies done to justify the original numbers.

Furthermore, when congress delegated regulatory power to these agencies they included laws dictating how the rules needed to be determined, specifically so you can't have a bunch of political hacks changing them on a whim. Changes to the regulation need to be justified, and there needs to be comment period to gather any information and concerns that the agency itself might have overlooked, respond to the comments and incorporate any changes as appropriate. I don't want regulators to be able say "this is just some crap" and change rules every four years because they shoot from the hip. That means that changes take 1-3 years depending on how complicated and motivated the agency is, but it is worthwhile to end up with better regulations and avoid being constantly jerked around.

> And, in that case, why add a new law versus just adding to the CCPA?
It is an amendment to the CCPA. Websites covered by the CCPA are required by law to honor the opt-out, and browsers are required to implement it.

I've never seen a cookie banner ask for consent to collect and store my IP address. If that is their reason, they completely failed to obtain consent in a manner that meets the law.

The reason for the banners are simple - a court case ruled that cookies are covered by GDRP, but they haven't explicitly ruled on other tracking mechanisms. So ad companies pushed the minimum and most annoying method of conforming with that ruling without changing their practices, and continue to ignore the fact that all the other tracking they are doing without consent is blatantly illegal.

The Switch 2 pricing was announced well after Trump was elected, and undoubtedly included *some* additional markup for tariff increases from the get go, since he had been talking about tariffs the whole campaign, even if it has been a continual game of roulette trying to predict the *exact* tariffs. So it makes sense that the Switch 1 prices would be more sensitive to the tariffs than the Switch 2.

You mean the JFK documents that were released containing hundreds of social security numbers of federal employees? Not exactly a glowing recommendation.

Wow, you really can't even continue reading once sentence after the one that triggers you.

Everything you said is true for an individual, but misses the point the parent was making regarding the total number of charging stations needed.

If an EV needs to charge 20 minutes every 200 miles, and an ICE vehicle needs to pump gas for 5 minutes every 200 miles, then you will need 4 times the number of public level 3 chargers as gas pumps to serve the same number of cars. In fact if roadtripping EVs are mostly charging at normal meal breaks, then you will need even more chargers, since use will be more clustered compared to gas stops.

On the flip side, the public chargers will only be used by people on road trips or who don't have a home charger which will decrease their volume. Still I would expect you to need more chargers than gas pumps along highways, and fewer in the middle of cities.

They wrote this software for free, and they gave you for free security updates that don't require accepting any new features. They even went out of their way to continue putting out security releases (ESR 115.13) for operating systems that Microsoft and Apple don't even support anymore. And they did this all six months in advance so you would have plenty of time to upgrade.

But enjoy your freedom to run old unpatched software.

In many ways I like the Lyttle Lytton contest even more. There were some very good Bulwer-Lytton entries, but it could also devolve into who could write the longest run-on sentence. Having a short word limit forced authors to really distill their horribleness.

If you take a book, reproduce it exactly, and add commentary at the end, the resulting work is a derivative work and you need permission of the original copyright holder to distribute it. FSF has only granted permission to use the AGPL exactly as it is with no modification or additions, so Neo4j had no permission to use their modified version of the AGPL, and doing so was violating FSF's copyright.

The Fed wants to keep the details secret and vary them frequently so the banks aren't over optimizing to the test. This makes senset, for example with standardized crash testing it is common for cars to perform great on the exact crash scenario tested for, but poorly on off-nominal crash scenarios that occur in the real world.

On the other hand, secret laws and regulations are antithesis to free society because how can you justly expect anyone to follow rules when you won't tell them what the rules are. And since the banks are required to modify their behavior if they fail these tests, then the tests are effectively regulations.

A fair solution would be to have the test published ahead of time, but still change frequently adapting to what the Fed perceives as gaming of the test. The problem is that going through the normal regulation process with comment periods and such takes a good two years at least, and the Fed would like to move faster than that.

I really wanted cryptocurrency to work out. There is such a need for digital cash that lets people pay for things online without credit card companies charging exorbitant processing fees and then on top of that tracking every transaction and selling your purchase history to anyone willing pay. In addition to making existing purchases better, I thought cryptocurrency had a chance of becoming Clay Shirky's micropayments, enabling business models that can't exist now. Reading about far away lands (SV) where there were actually bitcoin ATMs in bars, it sounded like the future was almost on us.

Instead it turned out worse than credit cards or even paypal in every way. Your purchase history isn't anonymous. It is at best pseudonymous but easily traceable if you use it as widely as you you would a credit card, and thus effectively public unless you go to great lengths to obscure it. Processing fees are higher than credit cards. And it requires insane resources to operate that would make the most inefficient monopolist bureaucracy blush in embarrassment. It is completely useless as a normal day-to-day currency.

Then to make matters worse, it attracted a huge number of grifters, conmen, speculators, and criminals who are its only real users.

Etherium is at least trying to work towards being useful as a day-to-day payment method. It has been slow progress, and I don't know if they will ever get there, but at least there is some progress. Bitcoin though is failed experiment. It had it's run, and it is time to put it down.

Shitfuckery - to intentionally set out to fuck things up for others.
originating from? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

To add to this, I want to point out that having excess capacity is the norm with fossil fuels as well. With fossil fuels, we typically average 50% capacity factor where we are only producing half as much power as we could be, and the rest of the production capacity is sitting idle. This is essential to be able to deal with variable demand and emergencies.

The excess energy these solar panels are producing isn't "going to waste" any more than those idle peaker plants are going to waste, or all the sunlight that isn't hitting a solar panel is going to waste. You pay to build the capacity, and then production is essentially free.

Not only is overproduction not a problem, we want more of it, to accommodate for seasonally variable production. Batteries are great for storing energy at noon to use at night, but it will likely never be financially feasible to store energy in the summer to use in the winter. In the long run, we should be sizing our renewable capacity to provide enough power at the time of the year when they are producing the least, and then just disconnect some of them when we don't need the excess power.

The only potential problem I see here is that they way they are managing their grid, they are paying states to take extra power to keep their grid stable. This should be fixed, first by building a reasonable amount of battery storage, and then curtailing the excess more promptly rather than let the energy markets go negative. But it is a temporary problem.

In summary I 100% agree. This is good, this is expected, we need more of it.

The purpose of needrestart is to check if any running software is using packages that have since had new versions installed, so you can restart just the software that needs to be restarted rather than rebooting the whole machine. So of course it uses python to check python software, and perl to check perl software, etc. Nothing wrong with that. Using OS package manager dependencies would result in tons of false positives, and doing everything in a single language would result in a ton of reinventing the wheel and thus likely introduce more security bugs rather than use the functionality that the various language ecosystems already provide.