Not necessarily. Many backup generators can only run for whatever the insurance estimators have calculated is the time required to restore the grid connection and that's it. For example one common means of generating backup power is marine diesels, which are readily available. These use the ocean for cooling. If you're using them to power a data center you need to provide cooling water to run them, and when you've run through that they shut down. That's just one example, but in general you can't run backup generators indefinitely.
> It is taught that the scientific method provides evidence, not certainty, in middle school science curriculum.
FWIW, this fact isn't taught properly or normies are somehow unable to process it.
There's this popular dismissal of tech people, saying that "they think in 0s and 1s, but world is shades of gray", but in reality, it's almost everyone else that thinks in 0s and 1s - STEM people and people in/into similar fields (like medicine) are usually forced to understand nuance due to nature of their interests/occupation, but everyone else seems to operate in purely binary mode, and what's worse, whether something is true and false isn't even correlated much with objective reality, and mostly with one's personal feelings about how things should be.
(Now, to be an equal opportunity cynic, in my experience, the concept of categories and taxonomies being arbitrary - invented and assigned by people, and judged by their usefulness, as opposed to being inherent facts of nature that are discovered - seems to be hard for even STEM people to process, for some reason, at least based on my observations and the number of conversations I had about this with all kinds of people.)
Just slightly over half of US states require you to move right to yield to faster traffic. In some places it is completely allowable to drive the speed limit in the left lane.
That page addresses tort liability, not liability for driving infractions or crimes. Liability for damages when a company does it is more settled of a situation.
It still isn't quite as clear who or if anyone is liable when traffic laws are broken:
Sounds like the tickets should be at least more expensive than the cost of equivalent QA (and if not, self driving companies might offload QA to the police).
I don't think building enforcement into cars would be a good idea, or even effective, but a few speed cameras work wonders for changing the overall 'temperature' of driving in an area.
Falsehoods programmers believe about speed limits:
1. The speed limit of a road is always marked by a sign
2. The speed limit of a road is in a database
3. You can look up the GPS location of a vehicle to determine what road it is on
4. Roads have exactly one speed limit at any one moment in time
5. Speed limits rarely change
6. Well, maybe speed limits do change, but only during certain fixed times
7. Roads have speed limits
8. Cars are only driven on roads
9. There are no exceptions for following speed limits
10. Well maybe there are but we can safely ignore those without any real consequences
[...]
I've personally done some software experimentation with speed limit detection in vehicles. The combined accuracy of automatic-traffic-sign recognition and speed limit databases + GPS is far less than 100% in real world driving conditions.
Sometimes bad road design (e.g. lanes too wide) are to blame, but in miserable neighborhoods with no traffic enforcement at rush hour you can also end up in a situation where the majority of people on the road are simply aggressive drivers who are familiar with the road. At some point you do need to enforce the law if it isn't being respected. There is a growing subset of people in the US who not only disregard traffic law but pride themselves in a distain for it.
I used to live in a place where this was common -- the issue was not just speed, but a general disregard for traffic law because traffic law was unenforced. You could be going 50 in a 35 and someone would aggressively pass you. At some point, the road is simply occupied by unsafe drivers and there's not much you can do other than hold your line and be as predictable as possible to the aggressive drivers around you.
I understand this phenomenon and experienced it when I used to drive. What I found so revealing was it ultimately meant that the people weren’t actually driving their cars.
Each ostensibly independent driver was being forced to drive a certain way by the most aggressive driver behind them, and in turn they were required to force the driver ahead of them to drive in the same way.
I’d think that an integrator would need to attest to their own supply chain controls. I’m not really sure how Intel could provide anything of value to validating the supply chain of their downstream customers.
> There's no post-transaction fraud scheme that works once cash had exchanged hands.
Yes but it is vulnerable to other fraud schemes, like misrepresentation or theft.
But yeah, when faced with the possibility of fraud many people instinctively retreat from the unknown (technology) to the easily understood realities of cold hard cash. Its biggest advantage is ease of understanding.
I assert it's more than that. Even Zelle can be susceptible to post-transaction fraud schemes.
Yes, someone can steal your cash - but they can also steal your item.
Setting aside theft - cash is simply the most secure way to ensure you keep your money post-transaction. There is no fraud mechanism to abuse, and no way to reclaim cash once in-hand.
For anything of value, the "old school" rules of meeting in a very public place and only accepting cash are still really sound.
Of course there is fraud risk with cash, it is just all on the buyers end of the transaction.
People are still getting scammed with cash every day with fake/locked/misrepresented/stolen items being sold on marketplace sites.
All of the legitimate reasons to reverse a reversible transaction is a fraud vector that cash is vulnerable to. That’s why reversible transactions exist.
> fake/locked/misrepresented/stolen items being sold on marketplace sites
100% of the risks you mention are still true with digital transactions. The difference is with cash, you close the door on literal fraudulent transaction claims or stolen accounts. It's vastly safer than digital transactions for in-person sales.
To be blunt - with cash, the buyer can't go home and file an unauthorized/fraud complaint with anyone - the seller has cash-in-hand, is anonymous, and the transaction is non-reversible. That's a benefit for these types of transactions, and one you seem to be overlooking.
If you're selling your couch on Facebook Marketplace - cash is king.
reply