onethought

This technique is explicitly frowned upon in a number of licensing tests. Hand is required to be completely on throttle, or all four fingers completely on brake. So I'm not sure "completely irresponsible" is the right term, as it's actually taught that way.

If you drop the throttle, you will already begin to decelerate from the engine your fingers are A LOT faster than "a second or two" in clasping the brake... easily sub one second.

What you are suggesting is basically unenforceable. How would you know what’s in a cameras frame?

What do the police do with that register? That sounds like it’s just helpful for them. If it’s only a registration and not an approval process?

I don’t think you are responsible for data protection laws… like if it’s a ring, that’s amazons problem.

I think this is controversial, because how’s it different from me taking a happy snap on my phone and accidently capturing you in the background.

As others have pointed out, you are essentially advocating for non-enforcement of speed limits.

Which feels an arbitrary line to draw. What about other road rules? Driving on the right side? Using unregistered vehicles?

Countries like India, China and South East Asia, have much less enforcement of these rules… Would you call their driving experience optimal?

Not sure what you mean by values software privacy. I don’t really have a view on it? So no, I don’t think I am.

GDPR just gives you the right to have it removed right? Curious to try that out, and request Amazon remove you from every ring recording .

What is a licensed security camera?

By this logic, are you saying cameras on private property, that happen to capture public space in their frame are also illegal?

Said someone living in a comfortable country with a stable government.

You can’t seriously believe this right?

For private use you can film in public places in the Netherlands no?

Which specific owner is the Chinese government?

Sorry, I should have clarified my question further. They already broke their promises on Hong Kong. So I was asking what the other promises people think they won’t break?

Like are we talking Taiwan? Or something in mainland China?

Hence: which promises and which people?

With regard to HK - agree they broke their promises, but it’s not like it wasn’t highly predictable a leader like Xi would do this, the shocking part was the speed, not the action.

Apologies for upsetting people by being too vague.

Which promises do you mean? And which people?

Isn’t this why solar is good. We already have the heat sink (earth) we just aren’t using the energy.

I missed the citation on his education point. Has someone proved that “teaching to the test” leads to lower educational outcomes than not having tests?

That’s right, the hill to die on is the browser’s openness.

Not your OS, not your firmware. Not your hardware. It’s the browser

Two distinct expressions that happen to share words. Is how I thought of it. Certainly in the context of the OP it seems he is not presenting an either or but a change course.

Sometimes a metaphor doesn’t make sense so you might abandon it for another rather than trying to stretch it.

Sometimes when fishing you catch something your rod or skill level is not capable of reeling in. So you are better to cut the line/bait rather than lose your whole rod.

Perhaps micro wallets should be a thing where your wealth is distributed across many keys mitigating some loss.

No it isn’t. No more than a wallet key.

If I lose $1 note. It’s gone. If I recover it, then it’s no longer lost.

Because we have power lines and batteries now, so solar can be where the sun is, and consumption can be where it isn't.

I guess I'm envisioning a future where there is a lot more solar panels than there is consumption, meaning we can store for later or transmit to places that cannot generate themselves.

But choosing nuclear power doesn't remove our need for semiconductors, so it's a bit weird to attribute that to solar.

The fabrication of of panels is more analogous to fission material mining. As in you are procuring the materials that will produce energy in the future.

If we get rid of nuclear power, we don't need to mine those things anymore. If we get rid of solar panels, we still need semiconductors. So I don't think you can use it for an argument against solar manufacture.

Right so pick a metric that highly favours nuclear because its been around longer.

And ignore common sense that leaving inert rocks in the sun is fundamentally less dangerous than super heating water with highly toxic and unstable materials.

If you can't see your bias here, I don't think I am going to change your mind.

Even by your joule measure, give it time, Solar will beat that too. And even if the largest solar farm in existence started to fail or "not operate normally" we would not have to replace the top soil or bury it in sand for 20,000 years.

Is it? That's the thing we literally mass produce in factories. I think it's the machinery to do voltage conversions and transmission that is the critical cost factor.

But there was only evidence of a reduction in temperature in your link. Which would actually increase the effectiveness of Solar.

The idea of a global darkness for a significant period of time, would be extinction level.

Radiation destroys DNA and directly causes cancer. That's the super obvious link. Your deliberate avoidance doesn't change that fact.

Because of this are a bunch of safety protocols in the extraction, transportation, storage and use of radio active materials and their waste products.

100% sure that all of the chemicals involved in Solar manufacture are less toxic to the human body than handling Plutonium. So, we can probably design enough protocols to make it safe to manufacture given we did it for far more toxic materials.

> You can live right next to a nuclear power plant, or even work in one, and your radiation exposure will be indistinguishable from background levels.

So they dug up and replaced all the surface soil around Fukushima for no reason?

I think any project is going to need some form of capacitor as a grid would just become unstable if you dump a huge amount of peak solar onto it without the consumption.

So either way you need batteries, and all the problems they bring. Just about "how many".

Is there a link between Solar production and Cancer? I mean there is a super obvious one with Nuclear.

It's not fair to point out very real impacts of Nuclear failures. But it's fair to compare to hypothetical-yet-to-occur "Mass Solar failures".

Solar relies on Light, just like life does. So you are kind of referring to mass extinction events. no?

There are batteries included as part of this project. So I don't think time really matters.

Just go look up former prime minister Julia Gillard address US congress.

I cringe every time I rewatch.

(Then again thanks to Wikileaks we now know US were “assessing” whether Gillard would be a good replacement to Rudd a year before it all happened… so I guess that made her a fan!

China has been rightly condemned for "speaking" of invading Taiwan. What would you like the world to do for this "thought crime" given no invasion has occurred? Surround the country in military bases? We've done that, has that helped defuse the situation?

China have pursued interventionist policies? You are going to need to cite that. Which African leaders did China coerce?

Your reasoning for "less publicised and less visible" doesn't make sense... couldn't the "free press" of the US shine a light on it? Taiwan has a free press...?

I think you need to understand Myanmar better, it was the military that launched the genocidal campaign, and it was the military that overthrew the democracy. Converting a state that shares a land border with China to be an ally of the US feels way more strategic than the Phillipines... or even Taiwan for that matter (sans the microchip manufacturing capacity).

"Rules based order" - Wow, straight out of "Western nations' talking points". You honestly sound like the communists quoting Mao from the little red book. Is the US following this rules based order? Seems to me China is following those rules more than the US ever did. Which rules is china breaking?

Like when the US signed the treaty that said space would not be militarised, then it created the "space force", and banned china for the ISS. Or that it wouldn't imprison people unfairly (according to both its own constitution AND its international treaties), so it created prisons on foreign soil to imprison them unfairly. Or that it helped establish the United Nations but then lied to them, and ignored them when it invaded Iraq... well and Pakistan... which no one even mentions. When it established the five-eyes then used that infrastructure to spy on its own allies.

Did you mean domestically? Like how it impeached its last president twice, has since convicted him as a felon... so he can't vote? But can still run as president? That rule based system?

Well, Alcohol is an even more easily accessible fuel that your body can readily use for a variety of activities... but its negatives are well understood...