Every safety measure faces a question of whether the resources allocated to it are an efficient means of achieving that reduction in risk.

To GP's point, we probably can't prevent people from crashing altogether, but we currently have a road system designed to sacrifice safety on the altar of throughput [0]. How many more or fewer kids (or just people) would die if governments allocated the resources to making roads safer that they currently mandate their citizens use on car seats?

> I don't need a guard on my table saw if I don't stick my thumb in it. Don't need a helmet if I don't fall off of my bike.

Do you think the guard on your table saw makes you safer than training and experience using the saw safely? There are always limited resources and multiple routes to safety, so we shouldn't assume any given safety measure is the best use of those resources (especially in consideration of second-order effects).

[0] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018-3-1-whats-a-stroad-...

[0] Hint: As our sibling conversation shows, that's a non-trivial question.

- the enemy had plenty of material, technical and financial support from adversarial superpowers who were all too happy to see American lives, money and military resources wasted.

That external support is not fully scaled up yet (despite clear reports of Russian intelligence support for Iran), but you can bet it would be in the event of a major ground assault, occupation, and/or counter-insurgency quagmire.

Tell me you can't see the fnords without telling me...

"Arrested for social media posts" including things that aren't protected speech anywhere (harassment, threats, incitement to violence).

>Tucker Carlson is under the gun for allegedly being a Russian or is it Iranian agent.

As critical as I am of the US administration (it wouldn't surprise me if they were investigating their critics, especially those who have large platforms and are openly supportive of adversaries), Tucker Carlson built his career by shilling conspiracies and persecution complexes. There's nobody here whose word you should take.

On the one hand:

> 11 comments in the last two hours, each 3-4 3-sentence paragraphs expounding essentially very polished summaries of the text with no added context

On the other:

> paseante 74 days ago | parent | context | prev | next [–] | on: Efficient method to capture carbon dioxide from th...

> That's the first thing I thought when I read the title. Hey we have already efficient systems for eliminating CO2 from the athmosphere: trees!. The joke tells itself.

> It seems like we have not yet done the full circle, but we are close.

    The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy. [0]

> We are now again in a new inflatory phase, and this time the difference is that it does not only impact GPUs, but almost everything really important, like RAM and NVME storage.

> But there’s also something new on the software side. The advent of new technologies like DLSS, FSR, and more recently Framegen have also changed the performance equation a bit.

> Finally, the games themselves are not pushing the enveloppe [sic] as much as they used to.

> but that’s not obvious that the visual outcomes are far better.

> We have entered in the marginal progress zone.