There is, of course the common sense rule. As in don't drive into the ditch ..

FWIW that advice was first given to me by a 10+ year veteran high school driving instructor. Repeated by a USAF instructor. And despite the assumptions about geometry, it will virtually never get you too close to the edge. Of course those were 60s & 70s cars, but it works with my Prius.

So you're saying you weren't driving a passenger car...

Sorry, I neglected the sarcasm flag. Though I doubt you recognize those.

Yes you can always see the hood. That's stupid, thinking you can't see the hood. And the rule isn't to see the front of the hood, but the center. Of what you can see. But if you've never tried it, you'll day it's stupid.

You think you can clean the air enough to reduce the virus load measurably?

Sure, clean the air inside your office space. Then walk out to your car.

Uhuh, that air is not getting measurably cleaner. Virus filtration worldwide? Please, solve faster -than-light travel first, k?

How can you tell someone hasn't taken useful and serious drivers education? They don't understand why the driver is positioned as they are in a car/truck/etc.

A driving trick: Most passenger cars have a hood. If you find the center point of the front of the hood, and sight down that, you find the point on the road where your outer wheels will track. So set the edge of the road along that sight line, and you're safely driving at the edge of the road. Few exceptions. It is true despite the apparent design differences among various makes and models.

You learn that from serious driver ed instructors.

Apparently the simulation will be enough for some...

We used to call them griefers. Now they pretend to have meaning.

" dismantle the apparatus"

"also giving Trump a powerful tool "

I see what you did there...

And the Congressional comeuppance to Trump was to let the intelligence framework they have used since 2015 lapse.

They sure took him to the woodshed, huh?

If probably will get put back. They can't let go of the keys to all that data. And you know how they will use it.

If you haven't figured out that 'the peasants' pay for everything, you're just not figuring anything out. Blaming is not understanding.

'We' pay for everything.

The serious projects like covering the desert, or canals, which seem really, really clever. It all depends on what they're covering. I guess sometimes not very nice to what they're covering. But it's really about choices. Responsible choices are going to be okay. I'm reminded though that there is no criticism of any power generation method that won't burn you, the scorn and ridicule and dismissal and rejection somehow. Doesn't mean anybody's right or wrong. Oh wait it does.

If it were just about the money, then nuclear would not be very attractive.

But it's the environment, stupid. Compared to fossil fuels, nuclear is an attractive option, cost be damned. Hydro is not without detriment. Solar uses space. Wind is going to be seen as a loser in so many ways, but it is a stepping stone.

Nuclear is the best option, and SMR among other technologies will improve the option.

ps - Previous comment about desalination in higher latitudes might, I think, miss the basic equation. Fresh water is more readily available at higher latitudes than lower, until you get into the ice. Nuclear powering desalination in Southern California, yes. Alaska? Dude?

Stop paying for it.