Профиль

It also works for crimes of negligence; you think you're going to get caught, so you pay attention to avoid being negligent. That leaves the two you've identified as problems not solvable via a justice system.

To emphasise your point: we know that once the punishment exceeds the benefits of committing crime, the risk of being caught is far more relevant to the probability of a crime being committed than the punishment - potential criminals just assume they won't get caught.

And yet, there's obviously no harm done in that scenario - neither of us take more than prescribed, and the only effect is that he gets pain relief in a timely fashion, rather than having to wait 10 minutes while we search to find out where in the spare room he put his packet. 3/3

It would have been illegal for me, when he came to visit us to help with the children, to give him one of my co-codamol pills when he needed it, and then to search for his pills so that I still had my full prescription amount, rather than insisting that he waited until we found his pills. 2/3

For a even less extreme example; when my father-in-law was dying of cancer, he was (among other things) prescribed co-codamol. I had a broken shoulder during this time, and was also prescribed co-codamol. We had identical pills to take - same manufacturer, brand, packaging, dose, binders etc. 1/3

You really do have thousands of parameters in play - if you're doing this the "big ML" way, you're monitoring all the information you have about the car (from intake valve position through steering inputs), putting it into a model, and determining what you're going to do with the main power unit.

Others believe in an "acceptable" cheating rate, where it's not worth spending more on cheat prevention than allowing cheating would cost you; you do stop the biggest cheats, but not the littler ones. Where you fall on this divide is a strong predictor for your political leanings. 2/2

There's also a known psychological divide; some people can't stand the idea that people get away with "cheating", and believe that it's justified to spend $100 in preventing cheating for every $1 spent on the cause. 1/2

Because the tuning of a deterministic algorithm is too hard for humans; if you have ~1,000,000 different parameters to set, an "AI" (machine learning, in this case) algorithm can find a local optimum for you, whereas computing the perfect set is too big a task for modern computers.

The longest delay I had in a security line was behind a family of 4 who claimed that they flew three times a year. Didn't stop them deciding, in the security line, that it was time to open up all their cabin bags and redistribute everything, blocking the rest of us from getting past.

I like the way field hockey uses VAR; you have to appeal to get a VAR judgement made. If your team appeals, and VAR supports the human umpire's call, that's it - no more VAR appeals this match. Means that VAR tends to only get used when the umpire is obviously mistaken, not for every little thing.

At 50 MPH, it takes 72 seconds to travel a mile. At 70 MPH, you're at about 51 seconds per mile - saving 21 seconds per mile. That's 3 miles to save 1 minute by going faster, 15 miles to save 5 minutes, and 45 miles for quarter of an hour. Roadworks are rarely long enough to save 15 minutes...

Note that in England, as petrol volumes sold at retail have fallen over the last 30 years, we've seen fuel retailers close down because they're no longer able to sell enough fuel at a high enough price to cover their fixed costs. That could well be enough to make EVs practical.

The tipping point was when lithium-ion rechargeable cells became a commercial thing in the 1990s; before that, FCEV was clearly superior (as compared to NiMH or lead-acid BEVs). But that implies that you've got leadership whose attitudes were set when BEV was impractical.

0.05 kWh/lb or 0.125 kWh/kg are reasonable approximations to work with for a usable device today. With the NIOSA recommended 50 lb per person (US limits), that's about 2.5 kWh in a liftable device; EU recommends 20 kg per person to get to the same number.

It is taught now - after the Gove reforms emphasized naming parts of grammar, we've settled on teaching the rules of grammar instead so that kids know what they're doing when they break the rules.

And for (b), the driver driving the car *off* the pavement is clearing it off the pavement - and we don't prosecute that, because they'd argue that there was no way to avoid the offence, and that as a matter of public interest, moving the car *off* the pavement was the right thing to do.

In case (a), only the driver can be prosecuted (same as speeding). For offences that S.172 can be used for, there is a separate offence of failing to provide details, for which the owner can be prosecuted - but that doesn't apply to driving on the pavement.

AIUI, the problem is that the offence can be prosecuted if the driver can be identified, but (a) S.172 notices can't be used to compel the keeper to identify the driver, and (b) it's impossible to prosecute if you're clearing the car off the pavement.

I'm not even sure it helps with safety - I've seen what turns out to be a loud bike while looking to see if I can pull out of a side road, but not been able to hear them until they're in my path. The noise didn't help me notice them at all.