Yeah it's also true that people here in the UK seem to be buying cheap cars too because we can't afford good ones generally. You see tons (literally) of cheap dacia and Kia on the road, with cheap as can be dirty diesel engines. If ride sharing in autonomous cars becomes popular it will be because the cost is equivalent to owning only a small portion of a car. This smaller burden would allow regulators to tighten emissions targets while still allowing people to get around.

Good points about what happens when EV adoption catches on. I never see it discussed at length what happens to petrol prices once we get to this point though. What happens when petrol stations see months and months of falling sales? Will they shut up shop? It seems likely to me that if the trend towards EVs gains traction it will be very difficult to run a petrol station profitably, and many will go bust or close. Petrol stations will become further apart and less convenient in a positive feedback loop that will make EVs even more appealing.

Nobody is 'forgetting' that wind turbines fail, but in all those videos how many people were hurt/killed? One bird, I saw. And negligible impact on the energy grid. The main issue is that a new turbine needs to be put up. Compared to the failure mode for nuclear which would you prefer?

Because of regenerative braking which is standard on electric cars, the pads get used so little even they hardly need replacing. Here's a taxi firm who's oldest EV is still on it's first set of brake pads at 100k miles.

To save anyone else needing to look it up, EDL is Entry, Descent and Landing. Not the right-wing nutters that originally sprang to mind.

The spirit of the ruling was to reverse PR damage against Samsung by apologising to them. Nobody is saying that the lawyers in the courtroom failed to DETERMINE the spirit, but what it looks like (to me and others) is that they are deliberately failing to COMPLY with the spirit of the ruling.

He did say those things, but in using them so selectively in their statement Apple have not apologised at all, and therefore not complied with the spirit of the ruling.

As an aside I find it interesting that a lot of people are struggling with this concept of 'spirit'. This is something that has featured prevalently in the law training I've had over the years so it seems natural to me: breaking the spirit of the law is punishable as well as breaking the letter; more of a principles based approach to enforcement. However it seems that some (USA?) people regard the law as a set of rules that can be scrutinised for loopholes and ambiguities that when found are fair game.

Is law genuinely taught differently in the USA? Or is this just an example of a bad Apple (sic) acting accordingly?

In the UK there is Private Eye which sound very similar; satirical with good journalism, and often the source of nationwide scandals.