Same here. I'm with Heisenberg, "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first."
Its the 80-20 rule in effect. Most optimization happens either by choosing the more efficient implementation or by better use of IO (see Efficient Persistent Data Structures). By the time you are down to putting in your own rewrite rules in for the optimization pass you have gone a long way into the weeds and it is a pretty advanced skill.
Ok, I'l be candid, I never feel very confident in my ability to separate news from hype when it comes to medical innovations. Can someone with some experience in the field give me some idea about how authoritative and well founded this report is. So many times researchers with put out this big press release of an initial finding that is going to completely rewrite a branch of medical science, then it gets peer reviewed into oblivion and is never mentioned again.
Are we sure that this should not be Carbon Monoxide rather then Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is the ideal result of complete combustion of a hydrocarbon. The only way it can be too high is if the engine is burning more fuel then it should be. Are they cheating on their CAFE standards? Usually tail-pipe emissions are checked for unburnt hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide.
I agree, this article is disappointingly light on details. CO2 is specifically regulated in Europe, separately from fuel consumption, so this could pertain to that.
Fuel consumption would be a very accurate proxy for CO2 production, unlike NOx, which strongly affected by vehicle processing, so it is really unclear what the cheat could possibly be.
>CO2 is specifically regulated in Europe, separately from fuel consumption
It's a joke. They should have increased fuel taxes. But that was too unpopular, so we have mess of regulations. As a result you either want to have new car with very small engine, or very old car with big engine. No matter how much emissions you actually make.
Yes. That's the reason why it was unpopular to rise it further.
But it would still have been the only logical action. It would have fought congestion, as idle running would have been more expensive. It would have encouraged to buy less consuming car and drive less.
On the other hand taxing car ownership might make unemployment worse. If you have to sell your future means of commuting because of the taxes, you are in deeper shit.
"Under the ongoing review of all processes and workflows in connection with diesel engines it was established that the CO2 levels and thus the fuel consumption figures for some models were set too low during the CO2 certification process. The majority of the vehicles concerned have diesel engines."
So the official fuel consumption numbers were reported too low, possibly as a result of the dyno cheating mode.
Here is a good rule of thumb. Three feet is about the swing of a car door. If you can park next to another car and your passenger can get out without denting the car next to you that's three feet.
I commute by bike daily and 100s of cars a week manage to pass me safely. It is not that hard and has been common sense for 99% of all drivers who pass me even before this law. It is that one super-sized SUV who passes me with mere inches to spare while going 50 in a 35 zone.
22 other states say 15 MPH is reasonable in that situation. Our Governor was not so sure and would not let the bill through with an actual number in it.
