In the dying days of 2016, three serious wind turbine malfunctions occurred in a small corner of Europe.
Are an illusion. Why? Quite simple they depend on multiple sensors which in turn depend on clear clean road conditions and the willingness to cleans all sensors arduously over their lifetime.
Snow, Rain, Dust, highly reflective surfaces are the least of your worries. The point is unfortunately 99.99% of the worlds infrastructure doesn’t resemble California highways at all.
Even in France or Germany with their very high standard highways the infrastructure mostly consists of badly maintained single lane roads often following the terrain resulting in very low grade daily commute connections.
The state of road infrastructure in 3 world countries is evidently even worse.
Please explain how an autonomous car is going not kill you on this extremely popular route
A twisting single lane road through multiple congested villages mostly along cliffs without a protective barrier at all. Still a a very busy commute road. So there you sit in your futuristic autonomous car, sun high & reflections all over the place, obstacles like fallen rocks a plenty, a road which is only recognizable as such because there is tarmac somewhere, passing motor-scooters at breakneck speed right and left, cars coming up on the other lane towards you.
And thats actually a reasonable road compared to for example India.
Self driving cars? Sure in the tiniest part of the world where well indicated multiple highway lanes exist.
I invite you to come over here with your Tesla during winter, the trip only takes about 40 miles. You’ll hardly reach your destination even when driving yourself due to severe drain caused by height differences, gale-force winds but for sure not with even the most advanced software someone can come up with if you go autonomous.
Facts? We Don’t Need No Stinking Facts.
One distressing characteristic of the Left, at least as far as science is concerned, is to let our ideology trump scientific data; that is, some of us ignore biological data when it’s inimical to our political preferences. This plays out in several ways: the insistence that race doesn’t exist (and before you accuse me of saying that races do exist, read about what I’ve written here before: the issue is complex), that there are no evolutionarily-based innate (e.g., genetically based) behavioral or psychological differences between ethnic groups, and that there are no such differences, either, between males and females within humans.
These claims are based not on biological data, but on ideological fears of the Left: if we admit of such differences, it could foster racism and sexism. Thus. any group differences we do observe, whether they reside in psychology, physiology, or morphology, are to be explained on first principle as resulting from culture rather than genes. (I do of course recognize that culture can interact with genes to produce behaviors.) This ideological blinkering leads to the conclusion that when we see a difference in performance between groups and genders, the obvious explanation is culture and oppression, and the remedy is equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities. Yet in areas like most sports, where everyone agrees that males are on average larger and stronger than females, it’s clear that the behavioral differences (i.e., performance) result from biological differences that are surely based on evolution (see below). In sports like track and field or judo, nobody would think of making males compete with females.
Well, poor animals. Since there is no causal link between any version of cholesterol and CVD and/or premature death they suffered flatulence for nothing.
Too many times the cholesterol myth has been debunked to repeat it here, if so inclined search this site on with the keyword ‘cholesterol’ to get a less biased view.
Obviously it’s a real moneymaker for the pharmaceutical companies to promote statins. Imagine selling an expensive molecule which you have to take the rest of your natural life even at relative young age but can’t be proven either way to do anything but cause serious life threating side effects
In order to be able to continue to sell statins or other cholesterol influencing drugs you need to keep the story going where you have ‘good’ and ‘bad’ cholesterol.
You know what your brain and nervous system is mostly made of? Yep. Very ‘bad’ cholesterol.
Furthermore your smart body limits cholesterol intake from diet to about 300 mg a day. So you can eat 1 pound of pure cholesterol and the only result will be you’ll be visiting the toilet a lot.
a few insights
well, whatever. The only thing for sure is that your lifespan/wellbeing is mostly determined at conception. You can be lucky and get genes that make you capable to live to beyond 100 years are bad luck and die at 5 years old from cancer.
It’s for you to decide if you want to live life constrained in the hope you can beat the odds, or just life live till you inevitable die. Hopefully of a massive coronary in your sleep
But whilst celebrex may have some positive effects statins don’t. There is no causal link between any form of cholesterol and CVD, there is however a direct link between profits and statins.
to make a point
The mindless anti-sugar nanny state strikes again.
Short and sweet: This study is all based on self-reported (i.e., unreliable) diet and sleep data. I doubt the authors’ claim that the diet data have been “validated” and they admit that the sleep data are of unknown quality
Originally posted on STOP THESE THINGS: STT has a ‘thing’ for the English language. In the hands of adept practitioners, our mother tongue is capable of conveying all manner of complex concepts and ideas, and doing so with verve and wit. However, in the hands of the well-paid spin doctors and useful political idiots that…