<blink>12:00</blink>

If you set it to "85th percentile of observed traffic" you are selecting 15% to be targets of fines. Why 15 and not 20, or 10?

States with "reasonable and prudent" rather than "explicit speed limits" do a more logically consistent job here. Reasonable and prudent is what we're really looking for - everyone choose a speed that is safe for the conditions of the road, the vehicle, and the surrounding traffic.

The problem is that it's difficult to fine people for that, because it is partly subjective and different for every driver and weather conditions. It's much easier to set an explicit speed limit and then measure speeds. Explicit speed limits exist for the convenience of the courts, with safety of the road users as a distant secondary objective.

If you want to improve safety, then look into "traffic calming" measures. In particular those that cause drivers to perceive higher risk (and research into conditions where drivers falsely perceive lower risk). Even just drawing the lines narrower on a wide street can have an effect. If you design the road right, drivers will naturally choose the right speed for the environment without any need for a road nanny.

I hate it because I have a dangerous intersection at the end pf my street. Great visibility one way, terrible the other way. But that’s the way I”m going 99% of the time. City won’t fix the light that warned of approaching traffic. So when I go, I need to go right then, not in a half second or so in case someone comes flying over the hill. There’s a button to turn it off, but you have to use it at every start. I could go the other way, but then that’s a half-mile detour through another neighborhood to turn around, so it’s defeating the purpose. In traffic, I don’t care either way, and I don’t know enough about the engineering to talk about wear effects, but as a practical matter it is very annoying in a pure ICE vehicle. Niche case, I know, but there are some good reasons to dislike them.

Though itâ(TM)s not always correct. I got a garage door remote that, yeah, works without their cloud stuff, but you canâ(TM)t modify several parameters like open/close detection delay with the open source side. Not that itâ(TM)s a big deal; you can sign up for their account using a throwaway email address and never use it again.

If you can get IPv6; my ISP doesn’t support it.

And for slightly more money you can get one that can control up to three garage doors and includes two magnetic sensors to detect open/closed state. They have their own app for the tech-scared but you don’t need to use it; it’s fine with HomeKit, and Home Assistant can control HomeKit devices.

BYD, at least, have a reasonable footprint in Mexico (taken several Uber rides there in BYD’s).And unless you’re already in the western US, Mexico City is as close as LA or closer - and that’s one of the farther-south places in the country. The one driver I asked about his was very happy with the car, and it certainly seemed nice enough. Not a luxury car, but comfortable and spacious.

While I agree that I don't understand how this is price fixing, I'm not sure your argument is valid. Standard Oil is a pretty well-known example of producers colluding to keep the price up, but they still kept it low enough that people found a ton of ways to make use of oil from transportation to heating to labor productivity. Using the "loss of demand" measurement we would probably have missed it.

I think the issue here isn't collusion per se, but rather that an information disparity exists and disadvantages tenants and is being perceived as "price fixing" because there really isn't any other mechanism currently to deal with the problem.

One alternative solution would be to level the playing field by finding some way to make tenants and landlords alike have access to the same level and quality of information. I would suggest perhaps all rents and rent offers should be published in a way that anyone can apply their own algorithm on either side of the negotiation.

If a person got sevely sick or died after believing lies that seems less important than if the wrong song played in the background of the youtube video?

About 20 years ago Lee Smolin published "The Trouble with Physics" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics) and Peter Woit published "Not even Wrong" where they described the core problem with String theory as people attached to the community to the general public of interest (i guess mostly scientists).

Since then, things have shifted a little bit, and the mindset is
changing. That does not mean that everything is peacy already - people who got their professorships 20 years ago may be heads of chairs right now.

I also am fully convinced (as a former experimental physicist who has nothing to do with particle physics) that sometimes it is necessary to follow and explore theories which do not result in immediate predictions. You only will know later if it did not work, and in the current interpretation on youtube there is a lot of hindsight.

I have struggled with how best to approach my variant of the problem - I don’t switch phones regularly, but I do carry a spare on international trips where they don’t have Verizon stores. I would have to find WiFi to provision the backup phone with the Verizon app.

That is a sign of the sucess of the language. It means that there are a lot of envitonments in which it runs productively with a well defined scope, very often embedded into an bigger system or package.

Which is exactly the problem. It is a very big and important project and in the current organization structure it seems to have a bus quota of one.

> And during that time your car charges back up to 80%

In five minutes every four hours? Sounds like you're already in the future.

I don't drive 600 miles without stopping. I could, however, completely understand not refueling in that time.

I expect to stop after about an hour or two on the road to use the toilet. After that, about every 4 hours until I'm there. I don't know if you've done much driving in the US, but the vast majority of our highways don't have service plazas such as are common in most of Europe. You actually have to exit the highway and find a gas station (or, if EV, charger). The only Tesla Supercharger in my area is in a place that makes sense from the company's perspective (fringes of an outlet mall parking lot, ready access to high-power lines), and yes, we all have GPS now, but it's decidedly not a minor detour to get to. From getting into the exit lane from the highway to being at the charger is a solid five minutes' drive each way, during which time you will pass two large truck stops that have all the amenities that long-haul truckers need (showers, e.g.) as well as a large selection of snacks and drinks, which the Supercharger doesn't - you'll have to walk to the outlet mall's food court. And once you're at the charger, it's outside and uncovered. Enjoy baking your car in the sun or soaking yourself if it's raining.

Anyway, the whole point from my perspective about insane range isn't how often I use it fully. I don't use up the 600-mile range of my wife's car (what we use for trips) fully, but 600 miles at ~80 mph with air conditioning or heating on probably corresponds to an 800-mile theoretical max range (at most-efficient speed, no climate control used). It's that I can count on 3/4 of that without worrying about it. And since you're going to protect your battery by keeping it between 10-80% most of the time, you're already limiting yourself to 70% of total capacity for typical driving.

I agree that charging that was as fast as fueling an ICE car would go a long way to mitigating that issue, but I still don't want every single bathroom stop to be 15-20 minutes (exit highway, drive to station, fuel/charge, drive to highway, get back on) when they could be ~5 minutes at a rest stop that just has bathrooms, not gasoline. Nor, once I've settled in for some serious miles, do I want to be forced to stop every 2.5-3 hours.