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.

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.

Many games still do this, but not via directIP. You still do rely on having an external matchmaking service. But that can be offloaded to Steam, PSN, or whatever.
E.g. Helldivers II. The host server can even be a Playstation.

The thing is this doesn't work for every type of game. It works best for private games played with friends, not big public spectacles. When you include skill based matchmaking it becomes even harder, where suddenly your network connection is at the mercy of some random dude's internet quality rather than knowing you've got a pretty decent datacentre somewhere on your continent handling things.

There's benefits and downsides everywhere.

Not sure what problem you're trying to fix. The issue with servers has always been that to punch through NAT you need the server to contact the client. But that issue was always that there was an attempt to connect to the address of a server directly, we live in a "matchmaking" world or an "invite" world. You can still of course connect to servers directly but that and only that will fail.

I am behind a NAT, a friend of mine is behind CG-NAT, we have no problems playing for example 7 Days To Die, which very much relies on the server running on his machine (not a dedicated server, but the principle still applies). Steam is used for matchmaking which allows to establish a two way connection that traverses NAT on both sides. It is able to work just fine connecting to someone's private server at home as it is public servers.

Likewise remote play together works just fine as well (the session being hosted by the person who owns the game). As do games like Split Fiction, or the ever popular Helldivers II (where one player is a host and the other(s) a client). All this doesn't require a remote server in a datacentre, but it does rely on a mechanism to start a session, in the case of all of the above we do it via Steam friends, or the PSN in the case of Helldivers when we do crossplay and the server resides on someone's Playstation.

He says, about an article which clearly notes a significant number of these cases happen outside the USA.

Uah I'm sad that I got an "Insightful" mod for this. I was going for "Funny" but I guess that's just the time we live in.

Few reasons... size, weight, power consumption, GPIO, new device vs refurb, support for shields and external boards...

If you're asking why you should buy a Pi instead of a NUC you didn't need a Pi, you needed a NUC.

Anything can collect dust if you're a shopaholic with no end goal in mind.