Ignoring the sexist nature of your comment for a moment
Wait, pointing out male privilege is sexist now? When did that happen?
You say that men who are mean to women chase them off. Then you say men who are nice to women chase them off. And I'm pretty sure you would say that men ignoring women would chase them off. SO WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU SUGGEST?
How about treating women like you treat everyone else, so that they feel like people instead of walking tits?
(And no, I'm not an SJW, I'm a fat hairy nerd.)
That being said, R is also very slow. For one project, I used R and ended up having to use a supercomputer (I only needed a few hundred Opertons out of the 4096 available) to get all the work done in time. For a followup project, I rewrote it in C++ and reran all the same stuff in the same period on a Core 2 Duo. R is really that slow.
How experienced are you with R? I ask because, while of course C++ will always be faster than R, such an enormous difference sounds like it might be due to doing things very suboptimally in R. It's really easy to have orders of magnitude difference in performance in R depending on how you do things. Of course that's possible in C++ too, but the difference is that most people who understand algorithms and architecture abstractly can probably write fairly fast code in C++ without too much familiarity with the language, whereas R, by virtue of being so high level, gives you some seemingly equivalent ways of doing things that are under the hood worlds apart.
Over the past couple of decades, as cell phone usage grew from essentially nobody having one to roughly everyone having one, the number of accidents per mile has been steadily decreasing. This suggests that in the grand scheme of things, either cell phones have no appreciable effect on accident rates, or that any effect that they have is more than negated by other factors, ranging from better braking and traction control to the extra cognitive ability resulting from people doing more multitasking in their daily lives.
Which, if true, would mean that if people didn't use cell phones while driving, the accident rate could be an unknown amount lower than it is.
In other words, the numbers agree with me and disagree with you. The cell phone distraction myth is just that: a myth.
Your numbers provided zero evidence to support that claim. At best, the numbers suggest that current strategies for reducing cell phone usage don't reduce accidents. This might just mean that instead of lowering the number of cell phone users, the laws make it more likely for people to hide their phones on their laps while driving, making them even more distracted.
What you're fundamentally missing is that the increased risk associated with skimming a text is over a very short period of time.
I wasn't "fundamentally missing" anything, I was making an assumption - not intended to be realistic - to illustrate why your original argument, being devoid of any evidence, was meaningless.
That means that if reading the text saves at least ten miles of driving, you're still better off reading the text than not reading it. That's not a particularly high bar. The average American has a 25.5 minute commute each way, so assuming you're equally likely to be asked to stop at any point along that route, using your numbers, on average, you're still better off reading the text message than not reading it, assuming you get it near the beginning of your trip.
Assuming every text people get is saving them ten miles of driving on average!? There is no way in hell that is anywhere close to realistic. The vast majority of calls or texts people get have absolutely nothing to do with driving. Now, if you have an agreement with, say, your spouse to only call you during your errand if something has changed, and you only take calls/texts from them and nobody else, then there is a possibility that overall you are reducing risk. But that's a fairly niche scenario.
After power was turned back on, I, and a lot of other people, went out and bought a hand-cranked USB charger(also doubles as a flashlight and radio, a handy device to be sure). It doesn't take that much energy to power a cell phone.
Unfortunately, I think a significant level of such individual disaster-preparedness will always be the exception, not the rule.
As for the tower issue, the towers where I was at(Tsukuba, which is about halfway between Tokyo and Fukushima) all kept power even after the quake but since so many people were using their phones to either call people or check the news it was almost impossible to get through(the bandwidth of the tower may have very well been degraded as well). A mesh network *might* have been useful there, but it would have had to have enough density to work.
I agree with your hesitation there -- in that scenario, it seems like the presence of a mesh network might make the congestion problem worse.
Also, the existence of grey areas doesn't invalidate the general principle. RANDOM PROFANE OUTBURST!