The problem is that the police are going to start using like they do with much more precise DNA data, and more innocent people are going to caught in the net.

The bar to convict someone (or, more likely, to convince an innocent person to take a plea deal) is not as high ("beyond a reasonable doubt") as some people think. Get caught apparently contradicting hard data or even a witness and there goes your reasonable doubt.

Same re*arded argument people use to justify shoplifting. Now tell me genius, what happens to the shops in areas with high crime?

But Americans are under the impression that what the world sees is what they mostly see -- the domestic side. And to a certain extent, they do thanks to its cultural influence. This democracy/rule of law, however, is completely absent in way it behaves outside its borders and it's now clearer than ever to everyone that the US is the biggest source of instability in the world. More than Russia. Certainly more than China.

But of course the US (or Canada) can't justify their 100% duty in those terms, so they don't even try.

If there is any incentive to make a product better is to make it more accessible to their first party customers.

There will still be innovation; the solutions will just have satisfy the new parameters.

(And compared to most of Europe or Singapore, US fuel is taxed very lightly, and their CAFE standards are especially stupid. Especially since their loopholes led to the replacement of practical station wagons with silly and dangerous SUVs. With a more car-agnostic fuel tax, this wouldn't have happened.)

If it slows down innovation is debatable but even so there’s still a solid principle behind it, a small speed reduction can grant a huge efficiency gain. It’s usually a worthwhile compromise. You don’t run tour engine only in the red zone because that’s where it makes the most power.

And customers directly benefit from the efficiency gain by burning through less fuel. So no need to decide for them.

The government gets to decide for the people because that’s what a democratic majority wants. If you don’t want it go full anarchist. Just don’t come crying to the government to protect you when you inevitably take it on the chin.

For example would you want laws that ban giving people the mother of all beatings in the street? Or just tax it really high? Someone might just have some money burning a hole in their pocket and an intense desire to teach a lesson in regulations. Everyone has some strong opinions about their own freedom until someone else’s freedom punches them in the teeth and then they’re little lambs lining up to ask for regulations.

You’ll be happy to find out that they in fact don’t. They only vote for representatives which then decide on important topics especially if they have impact on the wider population. Enjoy your freedom to pick your underwear while respecting all the fuel and speed related regulations.

You can’t have infinitely improving standards for an infinite time, otherwise you end up with bullshit like Dieselgate, and ecotechnocrats forcing everyone to drive around in mobile inextinguishable incendiary devices.

I don't know why it happens. Maybe a case of "if a dog bites a man, it's not important. If a man bites a dog, it gets newspaper cover". Maybe it is that an ICE car burning is extinguished in minutes, and then towed away, while an electric car burning is basically a two hours firework show.

At least ICE car fires can be extinguished, and without special equipment.

Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames while you’re sitting in it waiting for it charge?

Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames after a relatively low speed impact and lock the occupants inside and immediately fill the cabin with fumes from a rapidly degradging lithium ion battery?

Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames taking down whole RORO car transport vessels at sea?

Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames in your garage at night and ignite your whole house, while you and your family are sleeping?

Well, kind of. You have some seconds to try to cut it short, after that they will burn to a crisp, exactly like an electric car. The difference is that a battery will burn until the end no matter what. OTOH, an ICE fire is potentially explosive.

> Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames while you’re sitting in it waiting for it charge?

They can and they do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu7tQ2-x61k or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKOQUE9U1Ek or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFvzTOZsnsg. That Youtube channel alone (Jersey Shore Fire Response) has more than a dozen ICE car fires, nobody comments nothing about ICE cars being dangerous, just "firefighters great job". ONE single case of electric trucks burning, and all comments are "lithium bad". ICE cars contain oil, gasoline, paper, rubber, plastics... They have some parts that get really hot on normal functioning, and any failure (e.g. an oil duct leaking, debris on the exhaust) could lead to a "spontaneous" fire. The difference is that a lithium battery can burn from a cold state without being our fault, while for an ICE car you can blame the driver for bad maintenance, parking over dry grass, reeving too much... we like to find causality, so we can convince ourself we can avoid that happening to us.

> Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames after a relatively low speed impact and lock the occupants inside and immediately fill the cabin with fumes from a rapidly degradging lithium ion battery?

Any car can catch fire after any impact if the luck is bad. A gas or oil leakage can lead to a "spontaneous" fire very quickly. Any car can catch fire even without any impact, just driving around, as shown in the videos above. If your car catches fire, the fumes will be toxic, it doesn't matter if the toxicity comes from plastics, oil, rubber or lithium. Get far from the car quickly.

You are ignoring the fact that ICE cars are more prone to catch fire, proportionally. And the try to steer the debate to what is the cause of such fires, or if the ICE car can be extinguished with water. That would be a different debate.

That's not quite right. It's not like a non-special equipment like bucket of water or a garden hose (and I, for one, always travel with one of each!) work well for extinguishing any working car fire.

The remains of ICE car fires I've seen while out and about, while very few, are usually just hulks of vaguely car-shaped metal that have turned rusty from the heat by the time I come across them.

Car fires are never good. They're seldom easy to put out. EV fires can be worse in a lot of ways, but that doesn't make the other kinds of car fires saintly or anything.

> Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames while you’re sitting in it waiting for it charge?

Nope. Except: One doesn't have to go very far on teh Interweb to find videos of car fires at gas stations, either.

> Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames after a relatively low speed impact

Sometimes.

> and lock the occupants inside

Sometimes people can't get out.

> and immediately fill the cabin with fumes from a rapidly degradging lithium ion battery?

Nope.

> Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames taking down whole RORO car transport vessels at sea?

Not usually.

People don't usually die from getting hit on the side of the road while pouring gas from a jerry can into their EV, either.

> Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames in your garage at night

Not often, but sometimes.

> and ignite your whole house, while you and your family are sleeping?

I'm not answering that. I take too much pleasure in ignoring uselessly-specific addendums to questions like this. You'll have to forgive me.

You tell us.

From the way you wrote this comment, you seem to have a pre-existing belief that ICE is safer despite the evidence to the contrary, it looks like this because you're asking questions that are nonsensically specific, to paraphrase "does a ICE car catch fire while charging?", given that depending solely on how you count the tiny little lead battery in an ICE they *either* don't charge at all but rather refuel *or* they continuously charge while running.

> At least ICE car fires can be extinguished, and without special equipment.

False.

There are many different classifications of fire, each with their own special equipment; liquid fuel is amongst them, just as electrical fires are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher

> Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames while you’re sitting in it waiting for it charge?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=petrol+station+fire&t=osx&ia=image...

> Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames after a relatively low speed impact and lock the occupants inside and immediately fill the cabin with fumes from a rapidly degradging lithium ion battery?

Re "lock the occupants inside", that sounds like you're talking about Tesla's design flaws, which is a "Tesla" problem not a "battery" problem. Other EV companies aren't as dumb as Musk has been with Tesla over the last decade.

Also, firefighters have for my entire life carried tools specifically for breaking open vehicles that had been smashed in ways that stopped the doors working: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_rescue_tool

And window-breaker hammers have likewise been standard emergency kit for a long time, though I don't know when they started getting recommended for drivers themselves.

Re "from a rapidly degradging lithium ion battery", petrol and diesel fumes are also pretty nasty.

Irrelevant framing aside, post-crash fires are actually more common in ICE vehicles due to fuel system breaches.

> Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames taking down whole RORO car transport vessels at sea?

Yes.

Stats I've found with a cursory glance say that there's more risk from the ship's own engine than all the vehicles, ICE and BEV combined, that it carries.

> Do ICE cars spontaneously erupt in flames in your garage at night and ignite your whole house, while you and your family are sleeping?

Yes, and are more likely to than BEVs.

You are also not allowed to but your bicycle in the garage.

I definitely could tell the difference, though most of the time I just studied full 4-7 days before the exam.

It was easy to cheat on the assignments. Working on them in groups was common and sometimes encouraged. The only person you could really cheat was yourself (and a TA who had to grade one more exam)

So that was the justification used to switching to a less impactful final exam.

No idea how true that is.

We were also told learning a phonetic alphabet was better for young children learning to read than using the old ABC system.

As far as I have heard, that turned out to be based on one person's fantasy and zero evidence and has actually had negative impact on children learning to read.

To my knowledge they still teach about audio/visual/kinetic learners and how you should structure the way you learn around which one you are. This has been debunked for decades.

Not just the UK, pedagogy/education is a very soft science, along with any other field that revolves around human behavior (psychology, sociology, etc...).

Using AIs in experiments and studies will be an improvement even if they do not accurately reflect human behavior, just because you don't need a harm review and you can repeat your experiments multiple times under different variables.

ASLR is not an obstacle -- the same exact code can be mapped into different base addresses in different processes, so they can be backed by the same actual memory.

  root@1f0775a74fd7:/tmp# cat a.c
  int glob;
  int main() {
   return glob;
  }
  root@1f0775a74fd7:/tmp# gcc -c a.c -fPIC -o a.o
  root@1f0775a74fd7:/tmp# objdump --disassemble=main a.o
  
  a.o:     file format elf64-x86-64
  
  
  Disassembly of section .text:
  
  0000000000000000 <main>:
     0: f3 0f 1e fa           endbr64
     4: 55                    push   %rbp
     5: 48 89 e5              mov    %rsp,%rbp
     8: 48 8b 05 00 00 00 00  mov    0x0(%rip),%rax        # f <main+0xf>
     f: 8b 00                 mov    (%rax),%eax
    11: 5d                    pop    %rbp
    12: c3                    ret
  root@1f0775a74fd7:/tmp# readelf -rW a.o | grep glob
  000000000000000b  000000030000002a R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX 0000000000000000 glob - 4
  root@1f0775a74fd7:/tmp# gcc -shared -o a.so a.o
  root@1f0775a74fd7:/tmp# objdump --disassemble=main a.so
  (...)
  00000000000010f9 <main>:
      10f9: f3 0f 1e fa           endbr64
      10fd: 55                    push   %rbp
      10fe: 48 89 e5              mov    %rsp,%rbp
      1101: 48 8b 05 b8 2e 00 00  mov    0x2eb8(%rip),%rax        # 3fc0 <glob-0x4c>
      1108: 8b 00                 mov    (%rax),%eax
      110a: 5d                    pop    %rbp
      110b: c3                    ret
  (...)
  root@1f0775a74fd7:/tmp# readelf -r a.so | grep glob
  000000003fc0  000600000006 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT 000000000000400c glob + 0
  root@1f0775a74fd7:/tmp# gcc -shared -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o a.symb.so a.o
  root@1f0775a74fd7:/tmp# readelf -r a.symb.so | grep glob
  root@1f0775a74fd7:/tmp# objdump --disassemble=main a.symb.so
  (...)
  Disassembly of section .text:
  
  00000000000010f9 <main>:
      10f9: f3 0f 1e fa           endbr64
      10fd: 55                    push   %rbp
      10fe: 48 89 e5              mov    %rsp,%rbp
      1101: 48 8d 05 04 2f 00 00  lea    0x2f04(%rip),%rax        # 400c <glob>
      1108: 8b 00                 mov    (%rax),%eax
      110a: 5d                    pop    %rbp
      110b: c3                    ret
  (...)

Global variables in PIC shared libraries are really weird: the shared library's variable is placed into the main program image data segment and the relocation is happening in the shared library, which means that there is an indirection generated in the library's machine code.

People complain about the regulations, but they also complain about houses that are structurally unsound, unventilated, flammable, badly isolated acoustically and thermally and so on... I don't think going back is the way to go. It's true that sometimes licensing that too long, though.

But then again, we have turned "security" into something absurd which only adds costs.