Here's the decision itself (PDF). Also at The Register.
I easily got 40 MPG. The L20 version I had, with unibody construction, was a 3-door with a 3A-SU engine, roughly one ton (why it came with a 750 kilogram jack, beyond me.) It had good acceleration, too, and able to hit 55MPH in second. It was a speedy little buggy.
No point in trying to post as AC when you're attaching your name to everything.
You guys should look into hiring some of the older
"These days, manuals get crappy fuel economy; autos beat them every time"
Find me a non-hybrid that beats my 1987 manual transmission Tercel's 40+ MPG.
I have yet to see one at any dealership.
" the fuel economy is noticeably better than manuals"
My 87 Tercel hatchback got 40 MPG easily. I have yet to see any automatic transmission car with such a rating on it that isn't some sort of hybrid.
Your post is indicative that you are not a civil engineer and thus you need to shut the fuck up.
That's a huge stretch to claim removing safety markings reduces crashes.
I'd expect drivers are slowing down because the road is less safe without the lines, and are adjusting their speed to reclaim that lost safety factor. So they are making a somewhat arbitrary adjustment to reduce road safety, so that people respond by making an equally arbitrary counter-adjustment. How they figure +x-y ends up being a lower value when x and y are completely unknown, is astonishing.
At the very least, they are creating a more hazardous condition in the hopes that random drivers react by over-compensating to create a net improvement in safety. I sure don't want to be on that road when someone in oncoming traffic says "screw it I'm not slowing down" and significantly increases the odds of me colliding with them. Given that people have a reason to go faster or at least maintain their speed (to stay on time) and have essentially no reason to slow down unless you give them one, this is a setup for failure.
I feel bad about not being able to say much more than "this is fundamentally flawed". I want to say more, but it's just too simple to expand on. How they don't understand this is beyond me.
Or just use uBlock Origin, which doesn't play this bullshit game.
"Big websites can pay a fee not to be blocked. And it is these proceeds that finance the Cologne-based company and its 49-strong workforce."
Pay up or be blocked - sounds like a RICO violation right there. I bet some legal fuckery could be twisted out of one of our treaties to make it happen.
"While that's true, AMD hasn't had a strong product launch since 2012."
AMD hasn't NEEDED a strong product launch, considering the lack-luster performance of the mobile i5 versus an old as dirt Athlon II.
"Still, driver support is needed for the details of adressing (up to) 32 cores on that particular architecture."
The details of x86-64 have been well known for more than a decade. The architecture hasn't changed.
Your reading comprehension and inference skills must be sorely lacking, then. I suggest remedial education.
Communism. China is a single-party republic ruled by the Communist Party.
International Relations Theory:
China is a right-wing Leninist State, not a Communist one. Leninism is the political theory that a single party rules the government and governs all affairs as opposed to individual politicians. The confusion stems from the fact that the single party in China is the Communist Party even though they do not practice Communist political theory, but rather state-directed, right-wing economic and political theory.
The CIA classifies China's government as a "communist state". The CIA further defines communism as:
"a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single - often authoritarian - party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society)."
However, the actual functioning of Chinese society and economy is a bit schizophrenic. In its attempt to become a more powerful economic force in the world and to improve its industrial infrastructure, China's laws about private property and private companies have become more and more capitalist in nature. Property rights are starting to be taken seriously, which encourages private development and private investment in the Chinese economy.
The communist tendency to control all industry is still at odds with this growing quasi-capitalist economy, and they have not yet worked out the difference between "restrictions for the sake of government control" and "protecting consumers from dangerous products and fraud".
"Because most economists are not really strong when it comes to IT. They also have a really poor track record, as a whole, of predicting the future of the economy."
And you think a bunch of IT nerds are going to be any good at predicting the future of the economy?
Most IT geeks fail to remember history, let alone learn from it. That's why we've got the current SJW shit infesting Reddit, Twitter, and crap like Tumblr spreading around and fucking things up. That's why you've got laws going around restricting the internet well past what should be allowed, and bandwidth caps, and more.
And those IT people have lost all control to higher-up talking heads, all in the name of money. They can't control what they once built. You think they're in any position to even ATTEMPT to control the economy?
Can I get the number for your drug dealer?