I learned in engineering long ago that road damage was proportional to the 4th power of vehicle weight. This is not a complete picture; much road damage is environmental due to temperature fluctuations, etc. But is is mostly accurate in terms of road damage due to the flexing of the roads due to vehicle weight.
The myth of electric vehicles being twice the weight may be a result of confusing the cost due to weight. A 19% increase in weight being a 100% increase in road damage.
Or maybe it's just the all too common, FUD.

You fucked up. You trusted us!

Ref: You Tube

Live in the area. They work well for the 1-lane version. Most people don't have a problem with the 2-lane version. Things get a bit dicey for the 3-lane version. Familiarity is definitely a factor. For the I can't be bothered to drive because my phone is more important crowd, roundabouts are good at capturing them on the center island.

Any dealer at a gun show is still required by federal law to run a background check and follow other laws. There is no federal requirement for private sales, though 22 states require a background check for some or all private sales (usually by using a federally licensed dealer for the transfer). There are no special federal rules that apply to gun shows. I'm not aware of any state/local rules specific to gun shows.

You can obtain a firearm illegally just about anywhere in the world, difficulty varies, as does the legal consequences of getting caught.

Well, according to this article the Trump administration is a fan of right-to-repair. I recall seeing another article recently where he agrees with Elizabeth Warren on dumping the debt-ceiling completely. Politics is strange thing.

There is disagreement in the medical community for failing to distinguish the difference between and a low acute dose (less than 100 mSv but dosage accrued in a short time period, such as a single day), vs. a low gradual dose (e.g., less than 100 mSv but accrued over the course of a year)

The difference is that the bodies repair and disposal methods are thought to the be able to handle low-dose rates more comparable to high-level background radiation, than the unnatural effect of intense dosage rates that arise from nuclear accidents or bombs.

This is why the report you reference is not the high-quality support for the LNT model that you think it is. That report takes it's LNT data primarily from the low-level bomb data as 100 mSv - but 100 mSv for a single incident is nothing at all like a gradual dose of 100 mSv over the course of a year because the body for no chance to self-repair for that much radiation from a single incident.

The authors of that study frequently say that they don't have evidence that LNT is not the correct model. Not that they have strong evidence to prove that LNT is the correct model. I think the report is an honest assessment of the facts that they have.

I'm also not suggesting 100 mSv per year at a constant rate is perfectly safe - we don't have enough data to conclude that - for some reason the relevant double-blind studies never get done.

Others have suggested the acute doses less the 10 mSv are in fact safe or more accurately do not supply convincing evident that it is harmful. But public policy certainly does not support that view.

I suspect he doesn't know about - or thinks most people don't know about - ad blockers, and so offering a browser that has more relevant ads will attract people who hate the irrelevant ads but figure they're unavoidable.

Obviously, for those of us who are smart about adblocking, who almost never see ads we don't agree to see, it's stupid.

But shockingly, there are probably plenty of people who will happily sign up for that "improved" experience.

Since I expect it to be worthless, it's entirely possible I won't be disappointed by the result.
Still, why would I want MS to have access to some content that I create that actually might be useful.
I think I'll pass.

When your business model depends upon lying to potential customers, sounds like you have a problem with your model.
Why not advertise, "Honest start times - Movie starts at listed times. Show up early to allow time for refreshments, etc."

You had me going until you mentioned that a girl was involved.

Basic needs include food, water, shelter, energy, health care.
So invest in technologies that promote significant improvements in delivering technologies like these affordably to all instead of the few.

If you like fads, you can even invest in fusion energy and cover both bases.

Transmission of this virus from birds to humans is uncommon, but it has been going on for a long time. It always had the potential to kill some humans (usually elderly or having other comorbidities or both.

Transmission between cattle is something new and a lot more concerning because we share more characteristics with cows than birds. So far, no known cases of fatal flu transmitted from cattle to humans.

If the flu changes to allow human to human transmission, or so that it is more severe in cattle, you can be sure to hear a lot more panicky news. It's not like most Americans trust the CDC to tell the truth anymore and nothing sells news better than fear.

Traceability is collecting sales, births, deaths, and other disease tracking events to the government. This is so you can isolate and respond to disease outbreaks in the food supply. Traceability is the norm in Europe. The US government does not collect traceability data for beef or dairy cattle. They have talked about it for many years, but the industry opposes such requirements. Should the avian flu get a serious risk upgrade, it will not be possible to enact traceability in time to do anything useful to protect the general population based on traceability data.

BTW, I work for a software company for dairy management that is sold world-wide and has implemented traceability systems in the software for many countries. I wrote the system for Canada, and I have worked on German and Italian traceability systems. We fully expected that the US would require it pronto once cattle transmission started - but nope. When asking the powers that be about finally requiring traceability now that it has crossed over to cattle - still no action expected at this time. Why do we have a government that waits for a crisis (often at least partially a result of their own rules), then makes up new and often poorly considered rules in response?

If you do the math, it is not true. There are not and has never been enough nuclear materials extracted from the ground to actually irradiate everything to that level. When concentrated in population centers, you could get very high kill rates. You could make for a lot of unhealthy radiation everywhere (increased cancer, etc.) but we don't have the ability to kill everybody with radiation. Personally, I hope we don't attempt to conducy this experiment.

Not surprising - given the accident description, the pilots dramatically exceeded the structural limits of the airplane by dramatically exceeding the posted limits of safe operation.

Here's the report of the event:
https://asn.flightsafety.org/a...

It reads to me as if the (co)pilot deliberately amplified the Dutch roll motion (which is a simple lateral/directional dynamic characteristic of aerodynamics of ALL aircraft, whether or not it's operationally significant) until reaching such a large motion (probably a combination of simultaneous roll and yaw rate) that it exceeded the strength of the engine pylons.

In particular, it's possible to overstress the aircraft by putting in large OPPOSING inputs in an attempt to stop to the Dutch roll motion too quickly. It's quite possible that if they'd simply gone hands/feet off the controls, it would have damped out naturally with no damage. The failure of AA587 is an example of this: the pilot's large rudder input against the yaw motion (which was due to a yaw excursion due to unexpected turbulence) is exactly what caused the tail to snap.

Nearly every claim in this post is factually wrong. This person apparently knows nearly nothing about aircraft flying characteristics, other than buzzwords.

I am a degreed aerospace engineer working in flight test for over 30 years and I have tested large commercial/passenger-class aircraft, including deliberately-induced Dutch rolls for test purposes. I have sat in the cockpit behind pilots executing these Dutch roll maneuvers intentionally. I personally joined a flight test team that had a crash a few years before, due to a Dutch roll event during flight test in the early 1990s. I also edited the US Naval Test Pilot School handbook FTM-103 "Fixed-Wing Stability and Control Theory and Flight Test Techniques" in 2019-2021. So I'm working with definitive expertise acknowledged in my field.

Some facts.

1) The proper term is "Dutch roll", uppercase, not lowercase, just like "American flag" not "american flag."

2) Dutch roll has absolutely NOTHING to do with the wings alternately stalling. Zero. Nada. Its cause is more subtle and would take a few pages to explain; go look up section 5.2.2.3 of the USNTPS FTM-103 flight test manual (which I edited) if you want the math. A wing stall MIGHT occur AS A RESULT of Dutch roll if you cause such a very large Dutch roll at a very low speed, but I've never seen that happen in hundreds of flight test events, some of which were done with me in the airplane. And even if the wing DOES stall, it's not a big deal most of the time; I've also done many stall tests. We're careful and we know what will happen, but most stalls are immediately recoverable (because all airplanes are carefully designed to recover quickly and gracefully from an inadvertent stall).

3) There is no "triplet" input to "get out of" Dutch roll. It is a natural oscillatory motion and will persist until a "yaw damper" is engaged to counter it automatically; it's almost impossible to manually damp out because it will simply recur naturally. Even if you put in a complicated input to damp it out, it'll start again just due to small gusts. No pilot wants to spend all their time fighting Dutch roll; that's why aircraft have yaw damping systems.

4) Dutch roll absolutely CAN shear off the vertical tail if it becomes large enough. Look up the crash of American Airlines AA587 in 2001. And I personally worked on a program that crashed a Navy S-3B test airplane in 1991 from Dutch roll testing when the vertical tail failed due to bad test technique (deliberately overdriving the Dutch roll mode beyond the limits of the vertical tail strength, due to miscalculation of the tail strength limits). I personally have on my desk the control stick that was recovered by wreckage divers from the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay to remind me of that failure. That crash still informs Navy flight testing practices today.

5) But in normal operation with a properly-functioning control system and absent extreme pilot inputs, Dutch roll will never become large enough to cause a failure; all aircraft are designed with sufficient stability to not reach this point without a control system input (either deliberate or due to a hardover rudder input). It is, however often a nuisance residual motion which can be annoying or nauseating.

6) Dutch rolls not exactly a "very slow" oscillation. Slow, but not VERY slow. In most large aircraft, its period is about 5-6 seconds per cycle. Smaller aircraft have faster oscillations, maybe 2-3 seconds. It's easy to observe, and quite annoying.

See my root-level post here with more information about Dutch roll in general, and the actual issues in this event.