Auditors check exactly what you ask them to check, no more no less. They can see all kinds of problems, but if you didn't ask them to check that, then they won't mention it. They don't get paid to do that, and won't be thanked for doing it.

While this is an option, reliability would go waaay down for multiple reasons.

I really want you to explain why you know better than the MIT researchers quoted in the summary who determined you are wrong. Most jobs can't be replaced by current LLM, that's what they found. Why do you disagree with it?

I said this:

You responded by saying rocks can think. Strong example of cognitive bias.

You're wrong here, and you refuse to cure your ignorance.

ok look. "Thinking" is defined with extreme mathematical rigor. It's not completely defined, but we can definitely rule some things out.

Of course, I don't have time to explain all the math here, so as an example I used the fact that rocks don't think. However, some people like you idiotically tried to argue that rocks do think. You are a moron! Why are you even arguing that??? Get off the internet for a while.

FYI, their statement about Iceland is wrong. BEV sales were:

2019: 1000
2020: 2723
2021: 3777
2022: 5850
2023: 9260
2024 (first year of the "kílómetragjald" and the loss of VAT-free purchases): 2913
2025: 5195

Does this look like the changes had no impact to anyone here? It's a simple equation: if you increase the cost advantage of EVs, you shift more people from ICEs to EVs, and if you decrease it, the opposite happens. If you add a new mileage tax, but don't add a new tax to ICE vehicles, then you're reducing the cost advantage. And Iceland's mileage tax was quite harsh.

The whole structure of it is nonsensical (they're working on improving it...), and the implementation was so damned buggy (it's among other things turned alerts on my inbox for government documents into spam, as they keep sending "kílómetragjald" notices, and you can't tell from the email (without taking the time to log in) whether it's kílómetragjald spam or something that actually matters). What I mean by the structure is that it's claimed to be about road maintenance, yet passenger cars on non-studded tyres do negligible road wear. Tax vehicles by axle weight to the fourth times mileage, make them pay for a sticker for the months they want to use studded tyres, and charge flat annual fees (scaled by vehicle cost) for non-maintenance costs. Otherwise, you're inserting severe distortion into the market - transferring money from those who aren't destroying the roads to subsidize those who are, and discouraging the people who aren't destroying the roads from driving to places they want to go (quality of life, economic stimulus, etc)

Yeah my bad, I thought they were commenting why everyone is surprised by the inspection, I figured everyone in the UK knows they have inspections but some folk don't even know of the concept around here. .

I would hope most every folk understand why such a tax is necessary and good but I guess I've never seen the logistical and privacy costs of tracking the miles driven worth the benefits over just flat rating the EV at registration, or making it based on vehicle weight or some other fact of the vehicle and driver. The best taxes tend to be the ones that are the simplest to comply with.

Don't know where you are from but here in America(TM) we let the states decide how and whether at all vehicles get inspected, despite the fact there are zero restrictions for driving between state borders.

I live in a no inspection state and while when I did it was annoying to have to take it in every year or two the number of tires in the parking lot I see with the belt wires poking out tells me they're probably a good thing.

The fires can be worse but gas cars catch on fire like 2-20x as often.

This is also a problem that is only going to get better over time, most companies are moving away from lithium-ion and they are making more and more stable. In 20 years all the batteries will be solid state and those vehicles will effectively be inert, the only flammable device will be the airbags.

This was more interesting counterpoint back in the 2010's where every Tesla that caught fire made the national news but the stats just don't back it up.

Yes it does seem like this admin believes in the "realist" sphere-of-influence pre-WWI style of international relations.

Surely by coincidence this is also the position Russia holds, funny how that keeps happening!!

Depends on whether you think a multi-polar world can exist today. I don't think it can, there will be a global hegemon and your choices are China or the USA.

Make more what? Dragon capsules? Currently SpaceX has no plans to make any more dragons beyond the five they currently have. I believe the fifth capsule had its inaugural flight this year with the private Axiom-4 excursion. These dragon capsules are currently rated for just five flights each, but SpaceX and NASA are working to extend their certifications to 15 flights each. Currently the contract with SpaceX does not include additional missions that would have been flown by Boeing. While it's possible NASA could try to buy some more flights, I don't think they will. SpaceX has the falcon 9 pretty well booked, and their other resources are fixed on Starship. I'm not saying NASA "needs" the Starliner, though. Just that it's not a simple thing to substitute Dragon for Starliner.

This is supposed to be for NON-emergency calls. Not comparable to 911.