It is not clear at all that this is a case of lowering the bar; IMO that verges on an inability to engage critically with the issue under discussion.
It looks to me to be exploring a different way of presenting the subject matter that tries to answer the "how would I ever use this information" questions so commonly heard about hard sciences.
You're displaying a serious lack of reading comprehension. End of life care provided by palliative specialists is completely different to "scammers who absorb so much cash that they prevent real cures from being researched" and "people who squander their family's financial future on magic beans in futile attempt to live, but die anyway".
From what I read, the things that actually caused the issue were selecting a safety margin of 15% of estimated range, and failure to consult a weather forecast despite being fully aware of the effect of low temps on the EV traction battery.
Disagree that it's cheaper to retrofit quality household ventilation compared to changing stove types.
The cost of the heat exchanger alone is likely to exceed the cost of entry level portable induction cookers. Now add in costs to run ducting, cut through walls, seal the penetrations etc.
Of course, things are different at scale, and there's no reason we can't have a world where quality household ventilation, and less-harmful cooking stoves are both mandated.
You could replace "gas stove" above with literally any obsolete product with no impact on how your statement reads - which means it's not a very good argument in favour of gas stoves.
Consider: "I like my sundial. It tells the time well and quickly. It’s not very expensive to operate. I hope my next timekeeping device has similar functionality. Busybodies are never satisfied."
This is clearly a case of market failure where the current users of gas are not paying the full costs associated with that use, and where full information on the impacts of using gas are not always known.
For example, between 6 and 19% of current childhood asthma in the US is attributable to gas stove use.[1] What parent would choose a gas stove if they knew there was a 1 in 20 to 1 in 5 chance that they would cause their child to have asthma?
OP posted a since-the-dawn-of-time complaint about automatic updates that ignores why they are necessary, and clearly states that he's just refusing to engage with the usual reasons for them.
The "generic" response is beacuse the complaint is simiarly generic.
If you're willing to share, I'd be interested to see your custom notebook design. I've recently been laying out a few custom productivity "things" - like a continuous calendar - and can always do with more ideas.
A vehicle under direct sun will get hotter than if it's under a roof made of solar panels. Insulating the underside of the panels will reduce their lifespan.
A difficult proposal to defend. Even if we skip the enormous problems of proving the existence of a "[creator of] mankind", which deity did you have in mind?
Depends on how you define market rate construction costs. If the market rate is defined as median cost per unit area of new construction (within defined timeframe and geo), then by definition half of your sampled construction projects came in below market.
FWIW, I've never heard of or seen a bus halt at an empty stop when no one on board wanted to get off. The only exception to this is if they are running ahead of schedule, in which case a halt to return to the set timetable is the right thing to do.
It's already "out in the open" because tens of millions of college students around the world have access. You've shown zero domain knowledge here; just withdraw and apologise.
It's a nearly perfect comparison IMO. Risk is cumulative, and the number of risk-inducing events affects the outcome. Your response incorrectly assumes that the risk has already been realised.
I can't see this working well I'm afraid. It's bad for people who are very poor (can't afford time to navigate processes to issue ID), people who don't look like their ID due to changes in physical appearance, and people at risk of harm from being identified (whistleblowers). Conversely, a hostile nation state seeking to use social media to destabilise an enemy state will have the resources needed to forge or steal IDs. Finally, unless the UK builds its own great firewall, people will just use social media networks without ID requirements hosted outside the UKs jurisdiction.
This will not produce the outcome the petition starter wants (the ability to ID and prosecute people who abuse his son online), and even if it did, the costs would far outweigh that benefit.
It looks to me to be exploring a different way of presenting the subject matter that tries to answer the "how would I ever use this information" questions so commonly heard about hard sciences.