It is illegal* to ask if candidates are married.

It is illegal* to ask if candidates have children.

It is illegal* to ask if candidates live with their parents.

* In America.

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.

AI has been running at a big loss to get the users hooked. It was inevitable that prices would start climbing. That process is nowhere near done, running AI is expensive as hell.

Once the market starts reflecting the actual costs, you can bet the cost/benefit will not be nearly as rosy as it looks now. But some customers will already have gotten themselves between a rock and a hard place and will be sucked dry, then discarded. Those "expensive" people that are getting dumped will start looking like a bargain, but they will have already been snapped up by smarter companies by the time management that can't see past their own toes figures that out.

Looks interesting, I'll take a look when I get back in to work.

All of this makes me remember a short story reading assignment in the 5th grade. It was about kids growing up in a society where machines did all of the intellectual work. To them, writing was 'squiggles'. They managed to disable a filter on their "bard" (a story teller for children) and had it tell them a tale of machines ruling over Man.

Nobody expects prophesy from a 5th grade reading assignment.

Probably the metadata is in UTC, and they forgot to convert it for Americans.

Interesting. I've never seen this claim made before; do you have a reference?

Probably very. The issue is still one-sided, even if an approval is required. There's this idea that consumers don't notice the price increase or don't realise it's happening, but in reality consumers are somewhat captive. What you going to do paybitch, suddenly stop watching that thing you're enjoying in the middle of the season? Spotify prices increase, do I a) go buy new hardware that supports some other service, or b) just pay the $1 per month.

And that is the justification too. It's not $15 / month, it's $1 more per month. I can afford $1 right? - The mind of a consumer.

GameSpy, now there's something I've not seen or heard in decades. You're right though, NAT and IP addresses are a matchmaking problem, not a server communication problem. Steam, PSN, Battle.net etc they all handle that for you.