787 karma · joined May 8, 2013
https://untappedcities.com/2013/09/25/guerrilla-bike-lanes-a...
Alma also has a shell script that will convert other RHEL based distros to it automagically, which is pretty cool.
https://covidactnow.org/us/california-ca/county/los_angeles_...
The Rutgers report is about the lawsuit, not the safety of the automobile, as mentioned. It's also just an opinion piece. Though it does cite some data!
Can you check the PDF? Upon its publication the Pinto accounted for 1.9% of vehicles on the road, 1.9% of vehicles involved in fatalities, and 4.1% of vehicles involved in fatalities involving rear impact. So maybe the Pinto was actually overall a pretty safe car! Except for exploding upon rear impact. Which is, you know, the defect in question.
"In nine staged collision tests of 1971-1976 Pinto 2-door sedans and 3-door runabouts impacted by 1971 Chevrolet Impalas at closing speeds of 30 and 35 miles per hour, two tests resulted in fires. In all of the remaining seven tests, fuel tank damage occurred with fuel leakage rates ranging from 6 to 700 ounces per minute, with an average rate in excess of 240 ounces per minute."
Does having two out of nine low speed collisions result in fire seem normal? Does having nine out of nine low speed collisions result in significant enough damage to the fuel tank to cause gasoline leakage seem normal? I would certainly hope not.
The original Pinto design was flawed and dangerous, unnecessarily killed people, and Ford was rightfully and successfully sued for releasing it.
P.S. That Rutgers PDF in your citation is about the myth of the Ford Pinto legal case, which is that whole thing about how Ford allegedly calculated that it would cost less to settle on wrongful death lawsuits than to fix their cars, not about the safety of the Pinto. The link in the article is broken but you can find it here: http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pint...
It was by no means the most dangerous vehicle on sale in its time—that was probably the Volkswagen Beetle—but it was absolutely more likely to catch fire in a collision than pretty much anything else on the road that wasn't a literal fuel delivery truck.
So no, it wasn't necessarily going to kill you in a collision, but if it did, it was a lot more likely to be with fire.
No they haven't. The setup process encourages using an Apple ID, but it has never been required.
And good luck if you did create one and you also happen to use Office 365, because now you have two Microsoft accounts, possibly with the same email address, that use the same login page, and that's not confusing at all.
>Live Text for copying and pasting, looking up, or translating text within photos
>An interactive 3D globe of Earth in the Maps app
>More detailed maps in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and London in the Maps app
>Text-to-speech in more languages, including Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish
>On-device keyboard dictation that performs all processing completely offline
>Unlimited keyboard dictation (previously limited to 60 seconds per instance)
Most of them make sense; the M1 has the Neural Engine and ISP, and Intel Macs don't.
Not sure what's stopping them from enabling additional text-to-speech languages or rendering a globe, though.
Somewhere between ~8k and ~9k, according to a random BBC article I found:
The scroll-load-scroll-load cycle does suck, though.
It's $75 now, by the way.
I feel like it's pretty well used for persistent installations that just need regular config updates, and we have better tools for VMs that get spun up independently for every reconfiguration.
I haven't seen anywhere whether AirPods can do 192kHz AAC over Bluetooth, which in my opinion would be more interesting. I assume not if all of the DSP stuff is done at 48kHz.
Even ignoring those last two, which just seem gross, running an entire web browser to accomplish the same thing as a 1MB native application is like using an anvil as a hammer. Yeah, it'll work, but why?