Better make it an impact driver, just to be sure.
isleepinahammock
joined 2 years ago
Why is it illegal to have a phone in your lap?
Likely to make the law in any way practical to enforce. Many people will use their phone in the car by keeping it between their legs like a middle schooler hiding their phone use from their teacher. They can read messages or watch videos while keeping it out of their hands, but it's still just as distracting.
You could just ban looking at a phone in your lap while driving, but then you have the nightmare of proving that someone who glanced down was actually looking at their phone, rather than just randomly glancing down for some other innocent reason. And they would have to glance down at their phone at the exact moment a camera or police officer saw them.
Phone use is actually very hard to enforce because of the nature of its use. People using their phone while driving don't tend to continuously look at the phone the whole time they drive - they would be completely incapable of driving if they did so. Instead, they use it intermittently, such as while stopped at a traffic light or while cruising down the highway. That use is still enough to degrade their driving performance to the level of a drunk driver, but it's not continuous. To make enforcement practical, you need to write the law so that it doesn't require a lucky coincidence to enforce.
For an older comparable example, consider open container laws. You might reasonably ask, "wait, as long as I'm not drinking from it, why can't I have an open beer in the car? Maybe I just want to take my half-finished beer home from the bar and finish it at home!" And while that would be a perfectly innocuous reason to have an open container of alcohol in the car, it would also make drunk driving laws much more difficult to enforce. You could only ticket someone for drinking in the car if they happen to take a sip right when you're watching. Instead of trying to outlaw the infrequent action, you instead outlaw the necessary but continuous action. It's not practical to only ban drinking in vehicles. Instead you ban having an open container, as "possessing an open container" is something a drunk driver will be doing for a protracted period of time.
It's not a perfect approach to writing laws; you do end up criminalizing some innocuous behavior. But trade offs have to be made. Yes, it's unfortunate that open container laws also make it so you can't bring your half-finished drink home from the bar. And yes, it's unfortunate that banning cell phone use while driving also requires banning just having a phone in your lap.
But if you've ever worked in a classroom, you'll know that this is the only way to actually ban cell phone use while driving. Teachers learn very quickly they can't just ban students from using their phones, they have to completely ban them from having them out at all. Relying on lucky coincidences to enforce laws is not a practical solution.
Almost Half of US Data Centers That Were Supposed to Open This Year Slated to Be Canceled or Delayed
Please. I don't want to torch data centers!
There's valuable materials in those things, and they release nasty fumes if set on fire. I say we just set the meth heads loose on them instead. Let them strip the place bare.
Levelized cost of energy. It considers the full lifetime cost. And LCOE of solar is less than half that of fission.
However it does have a definition in whatever context you’re looking at and is very real, so I can’t really agree with your whole comment.
So do Chuck-E-Cheese's tokens.
Some searching suggests Spindrift is from 3-12% actual fruit juice. So let's say 1 oz of juice in a 12 oz can. Simply Orange is a brand of premium orange juice. It costs about 10 cents per ounce. And that's a premium product sold in its own packaging. In reality, you're talking less than a nickle of juice in each can.
Today the high was 67 and it will top out in the low 80s through the next week.
In the winter months it's humid. In the summer the Willamette Valley isn't very humid. Currently it's 46% humidity as I type this.
On Amazon, covers like that without solar panels retail from $300-$1200. Assuming good build quality, that isn't unreasonable. When you seamlessly integrate $200 worth of solar panels into a cover that would otherwise cost $1000, a final price point of $2300 seems pretty reasonable.
Sure, you can just bolt some panels from ali baba to a roof rack you make out of tubing from home depot if you want. But what you're paying for is the quality, fit, and finish. OEM vs aftermarket.
Ok you have a point. There are always some niche applications where the general rules fall short. I'm thinking of folks who own a giant truck to tow a giant camper once or twice a year. The number of people towing antique tractors is small, campers not so much. And yes, there's definitely more to life than money.
OTH, you can make a flathead screw with a rod, a hammer, and a hacksaw.