That is including people who don't go anywhere, who take public transportation, or who walk or bike. What you want is how far somebody who uses a car actually travels per day. It took some messing with Google AI but I got it to cough up this (I had to do two queries, it refused to show the same info for both at the same time):

United States: 31.1 miles per day
France: ~34 km (21 miles) per day
UK: approximately 19 miles (31 km) per day.
Germany: ~19.0 km (11.8 miles) per person per day.
Croatia: ~7.6 km (4.7 miles) per person per day.
Greece: ~5.6 km (3.5 miles) per person per day.

True. But I don't think anybody anything about slaves and guns together, it was probably assumed as obvious that slaves could not have guns.

The second amendment was finalized long before anything about slaves were considered.

The real reason is that the states were afraid the US government would disarm their state militias and then the us army would take over. At that time a gun used in war was personally owned by the soldier, who only worked for the militia part-time and also used the gun to shoot variants and scare away robbers, so the way you disarmed a militia was you took the personal property of a bunch of civilians, and the 2nd amendment was written to prevent that. As far as I can tell they had no concept of the state becoming rich enough to own the weapons and keep them stored somewhere until needed.

In a modern car adding a "remote kill" ability will be EXACTLY the same whether or not the car has this imparment-detection software. Again you are trying to steer this in nonsense directions which is counterproductive because it makes opponents look like idiots.

The problem with this is false positives and false negatives. That is it. Anything about some other way of turning off the car is total nonsense because this legislation does absolutely nothing to make that easier or harder, so please stop talking about that because it makes you look stupid. Most other legit complaints about this all fall under the "false positive" label.

This is not a remote âoekill switchâ. Decision to disable the car is done internally and only when it is stopped. The argument against this is the odds of false positives and false negatives, try to remain in reality if you want to win.

Unfortunately it sounds like the statistics include the CO2 produced by users of the fuel. Amount directly produced to create, transport, and leak the product would be more interesting and I think oil companies may be pretty high up there anyway, but not at 50% of all emissions (since you said that 70% manages to survive the production process). If you counted it this way then construction companies would be responsible for CO2 emitted by mixing/pouring/curing concrete, not the people digging up concrete.

It would skew a lot of things however, since a coal power plant would be responsible for all the CO2 it emits (since it's product is electricity), while if a data center instead powered itself with diesel generators it would be responsible for the CO2.

It is kind of hand-woven but it sounds like they are counting the carbon produced by people using the products. So kind of a pointless statistic. They are not the only ones making a profit by encouraging consumption of fossil fuels, for instance people give car manufacturers more money for a machine that burns the fuel than they give for the fuel itself.

Yes it's not very clear if this includes the emissions from people using their product, or is just the emissions from the manufacture of their product (and leaks, I guess). It *could* be just the second which is a good deal more interesting and kind of damning.

It would make a lot of sense to include an unmanned lander in the next test, to get a lot more testing done.

They may be purposely avoiding doing this, because it will prove that the addition of humans to the lander really does not change what can be accomplished by the mission.

Sorry I cannot see any possible way these two services can be 1:1 on mobile while about 20:1 in browsers, assuming both offer working mobile and browser versions. Anybody have an explanation?

2001 had an intermission, right after the two are discussing terminating HAL inside the pod.
It also had a minute or two black screen at the start with music, which I have never seen.

The moon rotates, so this is only true at the poles. The moon is only inclined 1.543 relative to the orbit of earth about the sun, so it is almost perpendicular and the terminator is not going to move very far away from the pole, so this does seem feasable.

Yes but you seemed to indicate you think butter is a wonderfood. Maybe so, but the bad diet includes lots of it. Cheese too.

I was just complaining about a statement that made it sound like you have to refuel solar systems.

I agree there are possible reasons solar could be used. Batteries and transmission lines are not impossible. However I feel like there are at least reasonable arguments that these are much more expensive than a nuclear reactor.

There are locations on the moon where you could put several fields not too far from each other and at least one is in sunlight all the time. Not sure if they want to limit the moonbase location to there however.

The butter is in that pasta you are complaining about. They are eating plenty of butter.