Unfortunately this lesson is continually lost on many who push for separation and sovereignty of various kinds. For example those calling for western separation in Canada. Canada as a whole is already a very tiny market with minimal world bargaining power. Yet these geniuses think that a small subset of Canada would somehow have more clout in the world than all of Canada does. Because freedom and oil or something. They are completely delusional. Possibly they think they would join the US which is entirely possible, but even that will come at great personal expense. A Faustian bargain if there ever was one. Ironically some of the people who stand to lose the most, such as farmers, tend to be the most supportive of such an idea. The lessons of Brexit are plain to see, but very few see much these days.

I'm sorry is it 2016 when he was but where was Matt Walsh opposing tariffs in this second term, I can find a quote of him supporting the idea of replacing income tax with tariffs or is he just not talking about it because he's too busy pushing civil war, race baiting and generally being a traitorous piece of inhuman trash.

He's probably sad he doesn't get to pile on Shapiro with the groypers because he needs the paycheck. You got any other examples besides one of the absolute worst people in media today? Great example of the supposedly sane right, one of the most unhinged mainstream commentators jesus things are worse than i thought.

If we want to call all hedge fund managers gamblers I am not opposed but that is not unique to this guy.

Sorry, but even just high speeds are dangerous. They mean a slight twitch of your muscles and you're headed off the road faster than you can correct. It probably differs from person to person, but for me 70 mph was too fast, and I could tell that it was too fast. 65 was ok, but it was impossible to keep safe stopping distance. Fortunately, that *is* strongly affected by relative speeds, but you need to be able to handle incursions from this or that (say a deer).

If that happens frequently, then it's a serious problem that needs to be addressed. It doesn't matter if it's a really stupid mistake if a lot of people tend to make it.

1280x800 is noticeably blurry, especially at 10.5" or whatever it was. For 7 or 8" yes it's just fine.

But it's a great song, even if the story line is a big improbable now.

You really couldn't make a fair guess that maybe it was a typo for "nine-in-ten", maybe you are ESL i apologize, here's the source survey.

But when we look at respondents by age group, we see that only 10% of US 18- to 30-year-olds are “never BEVers.”

https://www.bcg.com/publicatio...

Yes, thus the term "soft science", it's colloquial, the definition of science has changed over time.

Sociology is still a real study of real things even if it's limited in its ability to do experimental testing. Same with economics, we don't have a second Earth to run a control on. Doesn't mean these things don't use scientific principles and methods.

Doctors still do science even if they are ethically constrained on how much experimental testing they can do on patients.

Too bad Rush didn't know that EVs can out-accelerate any ICE sports car of that era by a huge margin despite weighing 50% more, and even out-accelerate any current ICE vehicle quite handily. Outside of maybe super cars, any sports car of that era would feel pretty anemic to modern drivers. Corvette in 1981 could do 0-60 in 8 seconds and for a time was considered America's fastest car. Today my SUV with a Pentastar can do it in about 7.5. California drivers would think anything under 10 seconds is unsafe. The difference is torque, though. My pentastar downshifts at the slightest hint of a hill, whereas the 80s sports car wouldn't even notice.

Also, the only realistic way to create a true "unintended acceleration" without pedal misapplication is something getting stuck in the pedal or the pedal getting stuck down, which is not actually a subtle thing (again, these things have happened, but they're dwarfed by how often people hit the wrong pedal). Just sensor readings alone don't cut it. As a general rule, pedals have multiple sensors reading the pedal position (typically 2-3). They have to agree with each other, or the target acceleration is set to zero. A sensor failure doesn't cut it. Also, Hall-effect sensors are highly reliable.

Oh, and there's one more "failure mechanism" which should be mentioned, which is: creep. Some EVs are set to creep or have creep modes, to mimic how an ICE vehicle creeps forward when one lifts their foot off the brakes. If someone forgets they have this on, it can lead to "unintended acceleration" reports. There have been cases where for example the driver gets in an accident, but not intense enough to trigger the accident sensors, and the car keeps "trying to drive" after the accident (aka, creep is engaged). People really should not engage creep mode, IMHO - the fact that ICEs creep forward is a bug, not a feature.

All the person in these "runaways" had to do was lift their foot off the accelerator. Or even leave their foot on the accelerator and just press the brakes, as the brakes can overpower the motor (think of how fast you accelerate when you slam on the pedal at highway speeds vs. how fast you slow down when you slam on the brakes).

Regulatory agencies the world over are constantly getting reports of "runaway unintended acceleration". Nearly every time they investigate, the person mixed up the pedal and the brake. When the car starts accelerating, in their panic they push said "brake" (actually the pedal) harder, and keep pushing it to the floor trying to stop the car. In their panic, people almost never reevaluate whether they're actually pushing the right pedal. It's particularly common among the elderly and the inebriated, and represents 16 thousand crashes per year in the US alone.

If your car starts accelerating when you're "braking", get out of your panic, lift your foot up, then make sure you *actually* put it on the brake, and you'll be fine.

This is the first time I've ever heard Eiríkr "The Red" (TH)orvaldsson referred to as "a shipping marketer" ;)

Even before then he had shorted the 2000's tech boom and was probably very wealthy already so it was also it seems hes been in it for love of the game.

For that reason, he was early on the call that the internet had way overvalued companies with little to no revenue or profitability. He began shorting those stocks immediately and his hedge fund went up like a rocket ship. In the first year, Michael J. Burry returned 55% even though the S&P 500 fell 12%. The market continued to fall dramatically the next two years yet Burry’s fund returned 16% and 50%, making him one of the most successful investors in the industry.

https://www.businessinsider.co...

1) 1850-1900 is not "The Little Ice Age"
2) The Little Ice Age was not global, while you're talking about global climate reconstructions. The planet as a whole was not cold in the Little Ice Age.
3) You're talking about the basis of a particular climate target, not what the science is built on.
4) The mid 1800s is around when we started getting reasonably good regular quasi-global ground climate measurements, hence it's nice for establishing a target. That's why HADCRUT, which is based on historic measurements, starts in 1850. The first version of HADCRUT started in 1881 when the data was even better, but as more old data was recovered and digitized, it was extended to 1850. You can go further back, but you not only lose reading quality, but also are more confised to mainly regional records (Europe).
5) 1850-1900 was not a global cold period.

There's not some sort of conspiracy theory. The target is based on relative to when we have actual comparative data, and variations in modern preindustrial levels are a few tenths of a degree, not "several degrees" as per climate targets.