They can't afford any of your "solutions".

What about people in the bottom 50% of wealth/earnings?

So what you are saying that all engineering improvements over past many decades, from tire, suspension, and brake technology to all electronic safety features that monitor, warn and often intervene do not matter at all, because reaction times is what matters during normal driving. All I have to ask after this - have you driven a car before?

As usual, you are arguing in bad faith. Address the point I made instead of attacking a straw man. If car safety constantly improves, and speed limits are about safety, then why are speed limits are not being increased?

Yes, lets talk about that reason. A reasonable approach to setting speed limits would be engineering - what would it take to for a modern car to stop in set distance modified to account for bad weather. As tire technology, automotive safety systems, etc. are implemented you would think that speed limits would be constantly increasing. The reverse is true - with some notable exceptions of highway speeds in some states - speed limits keep getting decreased. Why?

My answer to that is that speed limits have nothing to do with safety, this is just a pretext. Instead, they are set to maximize fine collection. It is a way to raise taxes on population with minimal political blowback as you can pretend this is done to punish wrong-doers.

A few years back where I lived they installed speed cameras. Municipality contracted speed camera installation to private firm, which calibrated them to ridiculous speed limit +2. Then they municipality started lowering speed limits. According to official statistics, by the end of the program about 40% of population got a speeding ticket in a given year. This resulted in political pressure to shut the program down. Thing is, before, during, and after there was no measurable effect on accidents. It didnâ(TM)t even work as a safety measure.

Nah, AWS provides logistics to military and intelligence and has for quite a while.

It's tough to argue, "these aren't military targets, we just rent the equipment and provide services to the military for hundreds of billions of dollars."

Which is probably what people will argue.

Do they only have to state a reason or does somebody have to adjudicate whether that reason is validly "justified"? We have a Public Utilities Commission here that pretends to do such things.

Or is this one of these, "you can't know, so try it and a judge will tell you what the law was" sort of things?

Maybe somebody who understands Italian jurisprudence can clarify their theory of law.

You ever watch a bank heist documentary and think "Pfft, those idiots. I could do better."
That's me with most of these hacker douchebags. I'd just collect the damn money and shut up about it. No bragging. No Discord. No groups. No associates. This is why the state-sponsored ones are so effective. It's actually their job and they're accountable to someone. So very few meme culture shitlord egotists.

For allegedly smart people like lawyers, I'm surprised they can't figure out to add to every single prompt "but make sure you're referencing one single case that actually happened and add your cited source next to it so I can verify it." Not that complicated!

Hmm....over the years, I've had several girlfriends report loss of appetite after trying to watch a lot of Monty Python with me......

It is something to do with 2 X chromosomes...?

Agreed.

Also Major Tom shouldn't try to fix anything on a spacecraft if it's somebody else's job.

I don't want to say I heard Mission Control on NASA TV reading down a procedure to tell an ISS commander how to tie his shoes but it felt like that.

Velcro, I guess.

Most helpful comment of the week.

Much kudos.

Yes, and they didn't notice that the lab tests were all done with plastic gloves.

I don't know, I went back to CPAN after I came to understand the socioeconomic and cultural ramifications of mandatory white space.

Papers, please?

"They yearn for the greenscreens."