Got a recall notice about my few-months-old 20.000mAh Anker power bank from Amazon, went through Anker's verification process and found out that the S/N of mine isn't in the range of affected devices. Dodged a bullet there, also from past experiences [1] with the company their return/replacement process works well.
[1] e.g. BT earbuds where one side randomly stopped working after a few months, got a replacement after just a few minutes of explanation/verification hassle.
Not an expert on the topic by any means, but IIRC:
- Those designs have been in parallel R&D for decades
- Tokamaks are conceptually simpler, thus might be easier/faster/cheaper to make into viable installations
- Stellarators are WAAAAAY more complex to design and build but AFAIU they would have the huge benefit of being able to sustain the plasma for way longer for the same "startup cost" of a cycle since the particles of the plasma are routed somewhat like they're on a mobius strip instead of a simple torus (which should make it easier to confine more particles for a longer time).
I recall having read (several years ago) that the simulation technology of the 90's wasn't really up to the task of aiding in the design of those weird wavy magnets for Wendelstein 7-X, an unfortunate reality which delayed the project a lot.
AFAIK some automakers also cut down on the number of sensors by doing stuff like reading the already implemented sensor(s) for the ABS to provide the tire pressure warning function.
Eh, you really don't want a car without ABS, though. For motorcycles, I kinda get it since you can't do some stunts with ABS, but on a car, it has zero benefit nowadays. Mandatory ABS, seatbelts and airbags would be the big things for me, followed by sexy, modern ESP, TC for powerful RWD cars and collision warning beeper (no autobrake at high speed, that shit's deadly and I hate that it can't be permanently disabled separate to the beeper).
It’s required because it’s a safety issue. I think that’s the intent behind almost all mandatory sensors. That’s why the post put “useless” in quotes. I’m highlighting just that it may be required because it’s needed for safety.
However, many motorcycles have ABS as optional equipment and many people (non-stunters) don’t opt in for it. Meaning, many people don’t recognize (or don’t care enough to pay) the safety aspect.
I never thought about ABS while purchasing my little 250cc Kawasaki Ninja about 20 years ago, but in retrospect, I wish I had it! Skidding isn’t as bad for vehicles with 3+ wheels; they stay upright, at least. It had rained earlier that evening, and for whatever reason (skill, pavement change, oily film on the road surface, etc) when I braked before a turn the back-end slipped out from under me. Luckily, I walked away with just a sprained shoulder, broken thumb, and a spot on my kneecap worn down to the bone.
I thankfully was wearing riding gloves, helmet, and boots; the pavement wore through several layers of the leather, my hands would have been shredded like my knee, or worse.
Using ABS sensors to justify new regulation is a circular argument if those ABS sensors were installed because of regulation. I was arguing otherwise, that ABS would be installed in a big majority of cars no matter what, and that gives a non-circular argument.
Looking up some data, it was about 75% of cars and rising in 2007, so not as high as I expected but still pretty high. There's some circularity but I'd say it's mostly not circular.
I posted that they are installed for legal reasons. The other commenter posted that less sensors are required because they piggyback on another system. That other system is also legally required. That is a circular rationale because it’s still pointing to a legally mandated sensor. Nearly all new cars have ABS due to safety mandates.
You seem to imply that the legal and safety are independent. I am saying they are linked.
Ie there wouldn’t be a legal reason if it weren’t for the safety reason. So pointing to the safety is why it’s a circular argument.
It’s like disagreeing that smoke detectors are because they are legally required in homes because people want them anyway for safety reasons. Both can be true at the same time because they both are related to the same risk mitigation.
In any event, the OP was that some people don’t want those sensors, my point is they aren’t optional.
> So pointing to the safety is why it’s a circular argument.
You're confusing me. How about I explain my understanding of what makes things circular.
Generic hypothetical: Regulation requires a part. Cars put the part in because of regulation. Later, people amending the regulations consider something else that requires that part, and they justify it as having negligible cost because that part is already in cars. Because that part is there from regulation, it's to a strong extent regulation justifying itself, and it's circular.
Does your understanding of circularity differ from that?
Now, consider a variant: Regulation requires a part. But it doesn't matter because cars have that part anyway. Later, people amending the regulations consider something else that requires that part, and they justify it as having negligible cost because that part is already in cars. Because that part is not there from regulation, it's not regulation justifying itself, and it's not circular.
Does that make sense? You could imagine the part is "wheels" for the variant. Regulations that imply wheels are not using circular arguments when they say 'cars have wheels anyway, that's not a cost of this regulation'.
“I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have a regulated sensor installed” is a circular argument.
Now much of what you bring up is tangential. But one thing I think we think differently about is that each of the premises you laid out starts with regulation. I differ because i see regulation as a response to a prior underlying risk. In other words, the risk exists before the regulation. So I don’t view regulation as a “self-licking ice cream cone”, or excusing for its own sake, but rather a risk mitigation. That’s why an ABS sensor can be used for monitoring pressure: it’s not the sensor that matters but whether the risk os appropriately mitigated.
> But one thing I think we think differently about is that each of the premises you laid out starts with regulation. I differ because i see regulation as a response to a prior underlying risk.
In this case there's a risk. By my argument applies to regulations that involve risk and it also applies to regulations that don't involve risk.
> “I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have a regulated sensor installed” is a circular argument.
I almost agree, but I think the motivation matters.
"I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have those sensors already to follow regulations" is a circular argument.
"I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have those sensors already for reasons unrelated to regulations" is not a circular argument. If no regulations existed already, it's not circular. If they did exist but they didn't change your behavior then it's not circular.
>it also applies to regulations that don't involve risk.
Which are those? Because so far, this conversation has been about TPMS and ABS regulation. I’m beginning to think the discussion is more about dogmatic feelings about regulation than the topic at hand.
Again, your argument is based on following regulations for the sake of regulation and I don’t agree that’s why regulations exist. I believe they exist to mitigate risk. Sometimes they can be poorly executed, and sometimes they can be for a risk you aren’t acutely aware of or one you don’t care about, but that doesn’t mean the risk is non-existent.
Well like I mentioned earlier, there's a regulation that cars have wheels, right? That's not a risk thing.
> I’m beginning to think the discussion is more about dogmatic feelings about regulation than the topic at hand.
No, it's just explaining my logic. Using a more abstract example makes it easier to focus on the logic.
> Again, your argument is based on following regulations for the sake of regulation
No it's not.
> and I don’t agree that’s why regulations exist.
I never said that's why regulations exist.
I never said anything about why regulations exist.
I'm so confused.
I'm just talking about whether a certain kind of rule is circular or not...
It's not a very important point, to be fair. But you seem to think I'm making some wildly different points from what I intend, and I'm not sure why there's such a communication breakdown.
When I previously donated blood at the DRK, not only did I always get a Bockwurst&Brötchen along with a selection of beverages (water, cola, coffee, tea, etc.) but also a little gift bag containing a variety of little food and drink items, like a banana, an apple, little bottles/packets of fruit juice, (fruit/chocolate/etc.) joghurt cups, all in all maybe ~5-7€ worth.
Over the last few years here in Germany many, many food products have gained a little note next to the "MHD" (Mindesthaltbarkeitsdatum, [1]) which says something like "oft länger gut" ("often viable for longer") or "ansehen, riechen, probieren" ("Look, smell, try").
And IIRC the EU is also debating the removal of MHD from staple foods that are shelf-stable for years, like dried pasta, uncooked rice etc. Normal sugar already doesn't have an MHD, although jam sugar is marked with the year of manufacture since they have other compounds in them as well beside the sugar itself.
Where i work all all the food that's simply past its MHD gets collected every morning by the Red Cross for food banks ("Die Tafel"). Obviously if a foods container is damaged or it's rotted fruits/veg or it would be unsafe to consume for another reason [2], that stuff gets thrown out (into bins collected for biomass processing).
[1]: pretty sure it's the same as "best (if used) by date" since products from abroad are sometimes marked "BBD <date>" instead of "MHD <date>" (at least on the transport packaging).
[2]: like lazy customers not putting frozen or cooled foods back but leaving them elsewhere in the warm store, something which REALLY aggravates me.
I am not against gambling. I enjoy it myself on occasion, and I would not ban it. But still idea of gambling for money without chance to win money back... That just feels next step exploitation.
I do understand the dopamine process of demo games on casino sites, but still. Allowing people to pay for that...
From my understanding, the part that triggers the addiction is the possibility of winning money, so removing that seems to remove entirely the incentive.
Still have the three BOFH Omnibus volumes in my Kindle app, bought originally from Simon, who has since discontinued their sale on Amazon for some reason, IIRC Amazon fees/taxes/something like that which would actually lose him money from having it for sale there.
I've reread all three volumes quite a few times over the years, currently on Volume I, year 2000 #24 again, since I mainly read a few stories every time I'm on my 30 minute (lunch) break at work.
If Simon reads this, thank you for your work amusing your readers, me among them.
> No more books. At one point I was selling the BOFH 'books' on Amazon, but it got to be a royal pain. Every month or so I'd get some warning about the book quality from Amazon that I'd have to address and every year I'd have to fill in a US tax form - not big annoyances, but annoying enough to make it not worth the time... Amazon still reminds me every 6 months or so, but there's no turning back now!
So in my recollection I apparently mixed together the different parts: "having to periodically fill in US tax forms even though he's residing in NZ" and "annoyance not being worth his time". It apparently wasn't a direct tax/fee amount issue, but more one of annoyance and sales of these (e)books on Amazon probably not being substantial enough to offset that hassle.
Sadly I can't edit my GP comment anymore to correct that.
> In France it's mandatory in a company to have a "company union", after 10 employee it's one representative (employee who has part of his paid time dedicated to employees support functions, and it grows to more and more the more employees there is.
In Germany, that's called "Betriebsrat" (something like "company council") with pretty much the same purpose.
And then there's the "Gewerkschaft", which are unions not for one company but for entire sectors of the economy who - through their numbers of members - are able to do collective bargaining for the employees of their fields of various companies. E.g. "IG Metall" being the industrial union of metalworkers, which considering Germanys large manufacturing background is the largest union in the country.
I think that the standard translation into UK English of “Betriebsrat” is “Works Council” [1].
I’ve never been highly convinced by these organs, since they seem to be colonised by folks who want to become Very Difficult to Fire, and who ultimately fold to any poorly thought-through management decision that impacts the lives of employees.
I’ve come to that both as an individual contributor and as a senior manager, but YMMV.
[1] e.g. BT earbuds where one side randomly stopped working after a few months, got a replacement after just a few minutes of explanation/verification hassle.