Which UK cities?
A London year travel pass costs £2,568, so public transport is hardly cheaper either, plus it’s a whole lot less convenient. Unless you enjoy spending all of your time in an urban group think bubble with the only option is to use public transport to travel to more of the same.
An annual London travel card is £2,568, and that only lets you travel around London. So why should be instead force people to buy something more expensive and less useful than a car?
I also think tax funded services are quite regressive as you have to pay for them whether you use them or not, and there are no market forces driving them to be cost competitive.
Is any unsupervised access to the internet for children ever really safe? At the risk of sounding crass, why can’t they meet in real life like human beings are supposed to?
Fuel and oil quality is a lot more variable in the US as it’s set at the state level, plus it’s just generally worse, so are the environmental conditions, so you have to set the guidelines according to the minimum / worst case likely to be encountered.
Fuel and oil quality is a lot more variable in the US, so are the environmental conditions, so you have to set the guidelines according to the minimum likely to be encountered.
I used to help develop Diesel Engines before I moved into Software Engineering.
If they followed anything like what we did, they would just run load cycles on the engine in a test cell to simulate approximately however many miles of ‘normal’ use they want to validate the engine up to. During the testing the engine would be maintained, fueled, and oiled according to the maintenance schedule and customer guidelines the engine will be sold with.
After the testing, the engine would be completely broken down and analyzed. If there weren’t any signs of abnormal wear then the engine would be considered validated __under those conditions__.
The problem is when real-world use deviates from the testing conditions. Which is pretty much always. Then the manufacturer guidelines no longer apply.
If you run your engine harder than the test cycle load factor, you will need to replace the engine oil more regularly. If your fuel quality is crap, i.e. has any ethanol in it, you will need to replace your oil more regularly as fuel eventually gets into the oil, and ethanol results in high water content in fuels, and hence oil, which will break down seals as well as reduce overall lubrication.
If your engine breaks down due to poor oil quality from lack of regular inspection and replacement, then as a manufacturer I’d be very resistant to paying out on any warranty claim. Even if you followed the “guidelines” for oil
changes, you still have a duty to inspect the oil regularly, both as a responsible driver and under the car manual guidelines. Using bad oil and / or fuel is very easy to test for.
Long story short, the oil change intervals guidelines are just that, guidelines, and real-world use dictates the maintenance schedule. Frequent oil changes, before the oil breaks down / becomes crap, is just a quick, cheap way to prolong the life of your engine or any mechanical device with bearings or sliding surfaces for that matter.
An oil change is cheap. It’s also far better to preventatively change the oil, that way the engine is running with optimum lubrication most of the time. If you wait to change the oil when it’s black sludge, it’s likely damage will slowly build up from allowing the engine to run with poor oil.
> it’s not just an awful safety culture and poor maintenance makes anything unsafe.
I agree, I just felt that the original article was being disingenuous by stating that power lines are somehow safer than fossil fuel infrastructure just because it’s not fossil fuel. Whereas it is more about your point on safety culture, where both can be equally as safe or dangerous if managed incorrectly.
Would you feel any differently if people were recording your activities by pointing a camera at your window from the street? Or even just pressing random doorbells to see if anyone lives there?
Personally I think there is little difference between virtual unwarranted data collection and physical intrusions, and just because there isn’t some kind of barrier doesn’t make it acceptable.
“Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively.”
I’d posit that recording the location of every IP address, which in many cases can be directly tied to an individual, violates a user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent.
I wonder if most of the info is sent by the payroll / HR software employers use, rather than the employer themselves and without said employers knowledge? I.e. it’s a way for the payroll software companies to earn extra money rather than the original employer.