Don't forget to factor in the stress levels and sleep patters of those two lifestyles too.

"smart" headlights?
Whatever happened to Keep It Simple Stupid?

Yet another good reason to convert older classic cars to EV. (smiling as I drive off in my '62 Beetle EV.)

It's a lot quicker to find a specific paragraph in a 20 page book than it is in a 50 page book...
So says this 61 year old.

I figured this out a few years ago. My kids were using a word in a funny way. (Sick? Delete? The specific word wasn't important so I didn't remember it). To them the meaning was obvious. I was racing through the dozen or so different ways I'd heard the word used in my life, while trying to match contexts. Then one of my kids espoused, "Dad, you're so slow!" So I started over and did my thinking out loud. They'd never heard any of the usages I was most familiar with. They had fewer options to pick from.

Like you said, it's not that we're slower. It's that we have a much bigger library to parse through.

Wait until you are 64.

I'm not religious, but if I were, I'd be convinced beyond any doubt that this world is, in fact, hell, and we were all sent here for crimes committed in a previous life in another realm. We are probably kept ignorant of all that to see if we're truly redeemable, or not.

But like I said, I'm not religious. It sure is tempting though.

This is exactly why both of my daily drivers were made in the 1960s, then updated to electric power by me, myself. Eh, it's not the safest car to drive, but still about 20 times safer than a motorcycle. And it's damn fun! No nanny beeps or chimes to tell me I didn't close a door or don't have my seat belt on or left the sun roof open. I'm an adult. I don't need, nor want, my car to babysit me.

Here's one of my cars -- great for zipping around town!
    https://jalopnik.com/this-dads...

I remember one of my engineering professors in college (early 1990s) lamenting that China had more students in their honors program (aka gifted and talented) than we have students.

Let that one sink in.

All it takes is one generational leap.

It shouldn't take 20 years to confirm what's obvious.

Money never trickles down. It only trickles up. There's even a word for it -- They call it "profits."

The Planetologists of the world don't like the way people are using the word "planet" these days. (spoiler alert-- Pluto, Ceres and Eris are all legitimate planets.)

Don't go to an astronomer for planetary science. It's like going to a psychiatrist for brain surgery.

Also --
  Biology,
  Geology,
  Meteorology,
  Sociology,
  but Astrology...?

  --ology means "science". Where's the science in Astro-NOMY. If we're going to have pedantic police over crypto and other words, there are plenty of other places to start fist. Let's get the astronomers to stop using the word "disk" to describe the planets, for instance. No wonder all the flat-earthers are so confused and anti-science is so rampant.

For more about Pluto and other planets, and why planetologists and lexicologists insist that the astronomers' definition is illegitimate, there's a new book about it -- https://www.amazon.com/Welcome...

It seems like most of the debate on this page is whether Pluto is a planet or not. So let's dive into the definition for a moment.

1. In orbit around the Sun.
This is just a back-handed way of saying "no moons allowed." When you consider that there are literally billions of things in orbit around the Sun, but only a few hundred "moons" in orbit around something that's not the Sun, this requirement filters out a vanishingly small number of things. Add to that the fact that "cleared the neighborhood" renders this requirement useless since it's not possible to clear the neighborhood of the thing you're in orbit around.

2. Round.
Never mind the tortured science-y babble of the original wording. "Round" is the only word that matters here. Again, a pointless requirement since anything that can "clear a neighborhood" will automatically be mostly spherical. There are over 100 "round" objects in the Solar System. Pluto is the 17th. largest of them all.

3. This leaves "Cleared the neighborhood" as the only meaningful requirement for planethood. Except -- this is more dependent on distance from the Sun and the age of the solar system than anything intrinsic to the planet itself. Mercury does not have the mass to clear the orbit in the position of Mars. Since there's no definition for "clear" or "neighborhood", a lot of people have attempted to create a mathematical relationship to clear-up the confusion. But none of them are official, and they don't all agree. By most of them, the Earth could not clear the orbit if it were in the position of Eris, thus, not a planet. Jupiter could not clear the orbit of Sedna. Not a planet. This is not a definition for a *thing*, it's a definition for a *situation*. Also, the "neighborhood" of the Kuiper Belt contains more volume than the entire solar system between Neptune and Mercury. Not exactly a fair test.

4. The IAU's definition applies ONLY to *this* solar system and no other. That's not a definition for a fundamental concept. It's like saying the definition for mammals only applies to land-based animals. It's clearly not a scientific definition to create a taxonomy of celestial objects. It's more of an opinion, not relevant to anything useful.

5. Astronomers are not the only scientists who matter. Every planetologist and planet formation scientist refers to Pluto and Eris as planets, and for good reason. Unlike asteroids or comets, planets have an active geology, among other things that set them apart.

6. Why were the first two requirements included since "cleared the neighborhood" makes them fundamentally unnecessary? Because it was tacked on at the last minute to force an end to a heated argument at the time of the vote. This argument was driven by two astronomers who have been fighting to get Pluto reclassified as a MINOR planet since before the Kuiper Belt was ever discovered. One of them was Brian Marsen, the head of the Minor Planet Center of the IAU from 1978 to 2006. The other was Julio Fernandez, the man who the Kuiper Belt probably should have been named for instead of Gerard Kuiper -- who didn't discover it and believed it didn't exist. In short, the two astronomers who fought the hardest had an agenda.

Mike Brown, the self-proclaimed "Pluto killer", was on record saying it didn't matter to him whether Pluto was a planet or not. He only jumped onto that bandwagon after the vote went the way it did.

That vote was supposed to be a mere formality, meant to confirm Eris as a planet, re-establish Ceres as a planet, and retain Pluto as a planet. The vote was hijacked by a minority of people with an agenda. They took advantage of the fact that most people didn't bother to show up for in the last hours of a week-long meeting for a simple procedural formality. The wording of the original press release makes this clear:

  "The world's astronomers, under the auspices of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), have concluded two years of work defining the difference between 'planets' and the smaller 'solar system bodies' such as comets and asteroids. If the definition is approved by the astronomers gathered 14-25 August 2006 at the IAU General Assembly in Prague, our Solar System will include 12 planets, with more to come"
-- https://www.iau.org/news/press...

Lastly, and most importantly, voting is not how science is done, nor how legitimate definitions are made. The IAU's definition fails under scrutiny. (scrutiny -- the bedrock foundation of real science.) The definition of a planet is pretty clear when actual lexicographic techniques are used to derive a true definition, and it includes Pluto, Eris and Ceres too, now that we know Ceres -- unlike every other asteroid in the system -- has an active geology with cryo-volcanoes and everything.

For more of this exposition about Words and Scientific Definitions, Planetesimals, Planetoids, Minor Planets, Mesoplanets, Dwarf Planets, Planetars, and other things not generally regarded as Planets in spite of their names, also Planets, I highly recommend the book: Welcome Back Pluto! We're Glad That You're A Planet Again, By Ron Toms. Hardback ISBN: 978-1946767066. Paperback ISBN: 978-1946767059

Find out more at http://www.rlt.com./

One theory I've heard, and it's one of those "it's so crazy it might be true" things.

All the denial is *by design*. We've known since the 1800s that unchecked population growth would lead to disaster. In the 1960s and 1970s the human "population bomb" was a common topic of conversation. Isaac Asimov was pretty vocal about it.

We all know about the overshoot day. Humanity uses more resources in a few months than the Earth can regenerate in a year. It's like spending down an inherited bank account. Spend a two dollars for every one dollar you earn, and any inheritance will eventually run out.

Rather than do the unthinkable -- enforce birth limits -- why not engineer a global catastrophe that only a fraction of the population will survive. Better yet, you don't have to do anything other than business-as-usual and let it ride.

There's a lot of evidence that a warmer planet will also be a much richer planet for the ones who survive the transition.

Unfortunately, Hans Rosling was too late in letting us know that the population problem is already solving itself. Now the planned semi-extinction event is unstoppable.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I generally ridicule them and take them down. But I can't see any obvious flaws with this one. The people best situated to survive it are also the ones pushing hardest to do nothing about it.

In that case, you can eliminate corn, broccoli, carrots, lettuce, tomatoes, potatoes, modern wheat, almonds, watermelons (that you'd recognize), oh, and sugar (try eliminating refined sugar. I dare you!), and honestly, the vast majority of foods in our grocery stores that simply did not exist 1000 years ago. A lot of them didn't exist a few hundred years ago. Be sure to add bugs (mostly termites), grubs, snakes, baboons and some other things back to your diet too.

Food history is fascinating. There's very little that's truly "natural" about modern humanity's diet.

Do it!
  Then rip out the IC motor and retrofit an electric on in. I did it. It's a whole lot easier than I thought it would be. Totally worth it.
I even wrote a book about it.
  https://www.amazon.com/Convert...

The best part -- it's cheaper than buying a new EV too. But you gotta do some work to get there...

Agree 100%
I got tired of waiting for a good EV that's not all geegawed-up.
So I made my own.
Then I wrote a book about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Convert...
It was a lot easier than I thought it would be. And also *cheaper* than buying a new EV (including the cost of the donor car). And way cooler!

Planning to do it again as soon as I find a good 1940s era truck in a reasonable condition.

Remember back when there were thousands of startups building every brand of desktop computer?
That's where we'll be with EV cars soon. Apple will probably end up like IBM did, or Silicon Graphics, or something like that. My money says Aptera will be the next Dell.

Based on what?
I built my own EV and wrote a book about it. ISBN-13: 9781946767035
(you'll get better image quality anywhere other than Amazon. Their printing isn't the best.)

Compared to doing a gas engine swap or rebuild, it was dead simple. Seriously. Simple.
The hardest part about designing an EVs is the styling and the crash testing. Everything else is pretty much off-the-shelf.
The one and only "hard" thing about them is the FSD.
But, having driven several "driver assist" cars, knowing what I know about software development, and knowing what I know about hacker abilities...
IMHO, no fucking way am I buying one of those FSD cars -- even with FSD turned off. Keep that shit off my steering system.
I'll do my own driving, than you very much.
There are millions of classic cars and decent modern cars ripe for conversion. For a $20,000 upgrade, you can get better performance and 200 miles of range pretty easily in a classic car that's unique and fun to drive.
I used to lust for a Tesla. Now they look ugly to me. Meanwhile, my 1960 TR3 gets me where I'm going in style! (hey-- Safer than a motorcycle. Almost as fast too.)
Want something more current? I met a guy who converted an almost-new Toyota 4-Runner, complete with all the modern conveniences. Cheaper than a new Tesla Model X and a better quality car too. Anything is possible if you put in the effort.

Ah, I remember how flat and uninspiring that old FORTRAN poetry was when translated into English. It just didn't hold up.
And the hours and hours of bashing my head against the desk trying to find the right metaphors in C and PHP, finally giving up and just stating the facts in plain text.
You don't really know a language until you can translate the jokes.
I guess that's why I was such a shitty poet and novelist in spite of being a top-notch programmer. Yes, I could spend hours and hours reading reams of code. Pointers and linked lists were fascinating. Forget elves and orks, I'll take void functions any day. That's entertainment!