What if failing to do so is likely to cause loss of life?

You can absolutely get a local court judgement that a fine is payable - and is 'just and legal' in your country. And if the OP ever transits through your country you may even be able to enforce it.

That's likely what will happen here. OFCOM will fine the owners of 4chan in the UK, and if they ever travel through the UK or store funds here, they may well have to pay that fine.

Folks are going to be really disappointed to learn that we've been simulating the sound that a drive train will make during the design process and making (hopefully performance neutral) design changes just to make it sound as we'd like it to for over 30 years. I used to work in the software group that created the software. The sound has been fake for decades - no performance car sounds like it naturally should.

Most modern ICE cars are pretty close to silent at that low speed too.

On the small number of occasions that you need to be able to do a 300 mile trip without charging, you just use what you've saved due to the VASTLY lower running costs of an EV to rent something interesting for the weekend. Most of those kinds of trips require large amounts of luggage, so you'd likely need something larger that your day-to-day car anyway. Ir's a solved problem.

We haven't been doing 'just let the car sound like it sounds' for 30 years at least. My group used to work on a simulation package that allowed the simulation of what a drive train would sounds like, to enable engineering changes to optimise the sound (hopefully not at the expense of too much performance). Manufacturers have been using that capability to emotionally manipulate customers for decades - this is nothing new, just a slightly different form of implementation.

Typically it means what the populace can be emotionally manipulated into supporting, regardless of whether it will actually address the problem it is claimed to and regardless of whether it's beneficial to most of them.

It's a VERY effective approach though, if you're OK with the duplicity.

Yes, elected EU officials are indeed listening to members of the electorate - is that the only point you were making or did you have more?

And describing the living conditions of the people growing and making the veggie products would likely even the score.

We could go even simpler rather than trying to read that 'simple' label containing 3 subsections with multiple pieces of information in each, and just give it a meaningful name, on the front, in big print.

'Arms companies' in the same way that the contributor is a known arms-dealer, or at least a member of the same species as one. When people employ that level of reach to underline the point they are trying to make, they just undermine the point they are trying to make.

That's interesting. There is nothing in the paragraph describing the effect that it has to be binary - it's perfectly possibly for someone to display elements of both thinking styles. However you've jumped to the conclusion that it must group people into polar opposites.

It's about difference and risk. During good times, it was tribes of humans that would explore, cooperate with other tribes, and experiment that survived. In bad times, it was tribes that excluded outsiders, fought over resources, and didn't risk the different mushrooms that survived. Both traits are survival traits, so both have survived into modern times. That's really all there is to it.

All that's changed in recent years is the advent of algorithmically targeted social media that can feed a specific person exactly what they need to see to be frightened or angered and thus give power to someone who promises to 'do something about it'.

The ironic thing is that the phrase "it is only because of you two dickheads that I stayed" is actually a term of endearment. Most British people (likelihood increasing with latitude) would interpret that as "You can both be irritating idiots at times, but despite that I still like you both and that is why I stayed"

Plenty of freedom of expression here and nobody goes to prison for factually correct statements unless they have breached a court order not to reveal protected information.

However, lying about the above is a great way to make people scared, and scared people are more easy to manipulate. It's a great way to build a power base and get donations. Sorry that someone you trusted for factual information did that to you.

Explaining why you think it is impossible for the mean temperature to be higher WITHOUT it causing those effects might help. At the moment it just looks like you don't understand enough maths to see how a long period of slightly warmer weather than usual can produce a mean that is higher that that caused by a very short period of exceptionally hot weather and humid nights.

For the rest, just because a lot of people have been copy-pasting the same opinion on social media, doesn't give it any more factual weight. Remember, they are monetising traffic so they have a financial reason to be dramatic to attract traffic. The methods that the Met Office used for gridding data and sampling values at specific locations are all published and reviewed.

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wi...