Your vehicle has a specifically identifiable and liable owner. The onus on you is to ensure your vehicle is used safely, that includes keeping track of people who may not drive it. Most states have legal requirements that you know the driver of the vehicle and have verified their driving permits, and as the owner the liability lies with you or the person who can legally admit to having committed the offense.

There's nothing inconsistent with the law here.

Fun fact in some countries these things are treated differently depending on how the infraction is identified. For example where I live a ticket issued by a police officer in person holds me liable and can result in the revocation of my license. However a ticket issued to the vehicle by an automatic camera can only hold a person financially liable as there's no way to verify who the person was. As such the owner gets the fine (which may be paid by anyone) but critically you cannot have your license revoked by an automated camera.

You just defined a rule, i.e. the exact opposite of arbitrary. The speed you described is based on something physical. Also the reason the speed limit has an upper percentile is because two elements affect road safety: Total speed, and speed variance. The 85% rule exists to reduce upper speed variance improving road safety. It was set based on a statistical analysis of accidents, and the only "arbitrary" component of this is how many citizens are considered expendable to keep cars moving quickly, and even that wasn't completely arbitrary as that point was chosen to be a point below where the accident rate increases at a significantly higher rate.

Also the US government no longer recommends the use of the 85% rule and the guidance to states is to set speed limits based on local context and road design.

If you are distracted by speed limit signs to the point where you can't focus on driving, hand your license in. Especially in the USA where the skyline is made up of nothing but billboards and adverts.

You not understanding something doesn't make it arbitrary, much less is it a cause for a stupid conspiracy.

It's a staple in many countries around the world and has been for many years.

Nope. There is nothing arbitrary about the value chosen. Because you don't understand the background trade-offs, or how the limits are set related to road safety, both in pre-engineered systems which define speed limits based on types of roads, and that weird system that the USA did employ for a while where the limit is set based on a percentile of the average road speed doesn't make it arbitrary.

And why have a limit in the first place? Well even when you set it based on crowd sourcing the average acceptable speed (bad way to do it since there's ample literature showing people overestimate their capabilities), you still have enhanced safety by reducing speed variance - i.e. getting the people going above average speed to stick to a limit.

Claiming that speed limits do not improve public safety is just stupid. Not ignorant, just stupid. You don't even need to research this to conceptually understand why your statement is wrong.

I'm not sure why the public should have a problem paying a completely optional donation to the government. I mean they literally have signs on the side of the highway telling you what to do if you don't want to pay.

It does not more than any other speed limit. Cameras don't factor in to it. Waze and Google never time a path that considers the user going above the speed limit. In NL this also obeys the variable speed zones that change after 7pm. They only consider going at max speed limit, and below given current traffic movement. This happens in Germany too which is why you can easily shave off quite a bit of time on the autobahn since Google maxes both services at 130km/h, even if that speed is not a limit but a recommendation.

What you may be seeing is that Waze does take into account when the average speed camera is variable. E.g. the A20 variable zone where the averaging camera is in place is raised to 100km/h either side of the peak hour. It does take that into account.

Our intelligence agencies are going to be leaking like a sieve. The last time Trump was President the number of captured and killed intelligence assets skyrocketed. I haven't been monitoring at this time but I'm sure it's shot up again. Never mind the fact that we found out Trump was taking classified documents related to his businesses.

What pisses me off is the Democrats kept putting Republicans in charge of prosecuting Trump because they were so desperate to appear unbiased. Fuck that shit look where it got us. Tons of dead soldiers and we are probably going to put boots on the ground and do a draft soon. Because Iran isn't Iraq. We do not have the troops to occupy Iran. That's based on the pentagon's own math and that math is well tested and well understood.

Not that it matters to any of the old farts around here. None of us are going to get drafted and we know it.

That's a violation of international law. And yeah we are the baddies. If we weren't the Republican party poll numbers would be so low that they would remove Trump from office immediately just like they did with Richard Nixon.

So you predict an even more immediate and catastrophic crash? Well, maybe.

Thank you. It is usually only 2-3 days per week, because I do not need to work 100%.

If you do a dumb comparison, sure. If you look at the benefits I have, it looks a bit different.

Mostly all aspects of IT security these days.

I guess we are seeing the start of the end of the hype. "Investors", dumb and clueless as they may be, are not freely pouring money into the bottomless pit that LLMs are anymore.

1. That would be illegal (Europe) and 2. I am paid from a table since as a lecturer, I am technically a public servant. (No complaints about the salary.)