> Russia and China (and many others) have never even pretended to play or accept these "rules".
This false. They have pretended to play by the rules, and when breaking them, to at least manufacture some pretext, or to deny it was a state activity at all.
One example I can give you is that when invading Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Soviet Union convinced a few Czechoslovak politicians to write a letter inviting the forces for "brotherly help", thus manufacturing a case that it's not really an invasion. They didn't have to do it, the force differential was overwhelming, but they did it because they could point at the letter on international stage.
All this may seem a bit pointless but binding them in international structures brought interesting fruit in the wake of Helsinki conference on human rights. After that they were forced to at least somewhat follow the signed documents which lead to significantly better conditions to dissidents behind the Iron Curtain. And there are many examples like this, when pointing at international rules actually made things better. So let's not throw that away.
It's always possible to deny the relevancy of a comparison based on some quality of the compared data. The autonomous car pilot trials will be by their very nature restriced to some locations, with specific weather patterns, etc., so even after the mileage will be 1000x of the current one there will be still options.
At which point will the comparison be considered relevant?
When the confidence interval is narrow enough. For the human events in 1 trillion, we get 95% interval around [1997229, 2002773]. That barely changes the observed ratio. For 9 events of Tesla robotaxis, we get [4.11537, 17.08480]. That means "the real ratio is maybe half, maybe twice the measured one - we can't tell". The September was so out of usual distribution, that if you checked just October and November, Tesla would have a much better rate than humans.
I'm not saying the relevant agencies shouldn't be checking every crash. Just that "Tesla’s own Robotaxi data confirms crash rate 3x worse than humans even with monitor" is completely unjustified. But "crash at rate maybe the same as human and maybe 18x - we're 99% sure" doesn't get clicks.
My intuition is that their official numbers are cooked. Factors that influence the numbers:
- after 2014 the official numbers include the annexed parts of Ukraine
- since 1992 the natural change is negative (with a small interval around zero in 2013-2015), yet the total population was 148 million then and is 146 million now?
- there is some migration but officialy not enough to replace the decline of natural change ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Russia ). The numbers just don't add up, and that's not even counting emigration.
I haven't actually found any credible estimate what the 'true' numbers could be.
In our country, in case you are homeless the address you are registered to is the town hall of the town you are homeless in. It's a bit ironic, but the bureaucracy needs an address and the thinking is that local social services and the town administration likely know where to find you (but of course nobody can keep you in the town).
As the immigration is governed by the member states themselves and not by the EU, I don't see how it can be "a part of this deal". Which is probably why the media don't mention this. There is nothing to mention.
Shouldn't the obvious solution be based on observable reality? Which is that there is no technology in sight that will make EVs cheaper to build than ICEs. Otherwise you are praying for a miracle, and that's not a sound policy.
Technological advance can be modeled like anything else. Everything about plug-in EVs is cheaper than ICE cars, except the battery. So you can model exactly what you need to get the same as you're currently seeing with solar panels. You can calculate at exactly what point they'll take over aviation and so on.
I mean, this isn't even a very hard thing to model.
> I mean, this isn't even a very hard thing to model.
Could you please explain in more detail what exactly do you want to model here? Above, you mentioned "advancing electric car technology so they're cheaper than ICE cars". Now as we both know the issue is with the battery, do you just want cars with battery so small that the car is cheaper than an ICE but nobody wants it? Because there is no need to model that, it has been tried and failed.
If you mean modeling battery technology that's not yet available in EVs, good luck with that. There are better batteries available than in mass-market vehicles, but they are not cheaper; cheaper technologies are not as good. Sure, in 10 years the batteries will be much better overall, but we don't really have the luxury of waiting until the technology gets perfect and then scaling that, do we.
> hiding of things like the entrance are the hallmark of post-war architectural trends.. PTSD... American veterans
Post-war architectural trends don't have a lot to do with the war experiences but are, since you are talking about modern architecture, a direct continuation of pre-war modern architecture.
> But moving to the widows, even from that photo you can see how while the interior gives the occupants a nice view, the exterior hides them - sort of like a bunker.
The features that remind you of a bunker are more in the direction of brutalism (blocky, fortress like appearance but without the intent and function).
> We know as a matter of scientific study that asymmetry in architectural design introduces stress
No it does not, that's just complete nonsense. Have a walk around a really old (250+ years) historic neighborhood (preferably without a lot of tourists), it will be full of asymmetry, and then measure your stress levels. They should be through the roof, right?
One thing that is great about 0°C representing the freezing of water is that at that point you know there will be ice on the paved surfaces (unless they were dry, cleaned or salted).
There was no dissolution of Soviet bloc during that time.
reply