The universe according to MMM

[kalvado]

I used to think it would be cool to have a robot body. I no longer trust the tech industry to not completely overmonetize such tech, however. I have enough things to worry about without adding the planned obsolescence of my right elbow onto the pile.

You may start worrying right now.
Planned obsolescence of all the joints by age of 90 is pretty unavoidable. Service life of lungs is about 130-140 years and is an ultimate limit to life duration.

[Scott5114]

Okay, do I need to spell out "intentionally fucking up the design to score some rich asswipe an extra yacht" for the point to come across?

[kalvado]

Okay, do I need to spell out "intentionally fucking up the design to score some rich asswipe an extra yacht" for the point to come across?

You don't have to spell our "god", I know what you mean.

[US 89]

saying "loosing" ignores the rise in life expectancy. As long as it continues growing, fertility rate <2 may still result in population growth.
</ nitpicking>

How? At the end of the day, it takes two parents to make a baby and they have to make enough babies to replace themselves. That doesn't change if parents live longer, it just delays the net population loss that happens when they die.

[SectorZ]

I used to think it would be cool to have a robot body. I no longer trust the tech industry to not completely overmonetize such tech, however. I have enough things to worry about without adding the planned obsolescence of my right elbow onto the pile.

I've never understood the robot body thing. What keeps me going is mostly the cycling I do. My emotional mind is my weak point. I'd love a robot brain and I'll keep my fleshy, slowly failing body.

[kalvado]

saying "loosing" ignores the rise in life expectancy. As long as it continues growing, fertility rate <2 may still result in population growth.
</ nitpicking>

How? At the end of the day, it takes two parents to make a baby and they have to make enough babies to replace themselves. That doesn't change if parents live longer, it just delays the net population loss that happens when they die.

A crude example, but hopefully it explains things. No, I do not intend it to be real-life example.

Imagine a small town where every family has 2 kids, and the trend continues for many year.
1800: there is an average of 2 generations per family
1950: grandparents become more common, the average family is now 3 generations
2020: great-grandparents are more common, 4 generations per family is not unusual.

Population did double  - purely due to people living longer.

[Max Rockatansky]

I used to think it would be cool to have a robot body. I no longer trust the tech industry to not completely overmonetize such tech, however. I have enough things to worry about without adding the planned obsolescence of my right elbow onto the pile.

I've never understood the robot body thing. What keeps me going is mostly the cycling I do. My emotional mind is my weak point. I'd love a robot brain and I'll keep my fleshy, slowly failing body.

I don't get it either.  I'm a distance runner, I actually like to train and grow stronger from effort. 

[J N Winkler]

A crude example, but hopefully it explains things. No, I do not intend it to be real-life example.

Imagine a small town where every family has 2 kids, and the trend continues for many year.
1800: there is an average of 2 generations per family
1950: grandparents become more common, the average family is now 3 generations
2020: great-grandparents are more common, 4 generations per family is not unusual.

Population did double  - purely due to people living longer.

And just to add:  a large part of the reason for the longer life expectancy is reduced infant mortality.  My Scottish fourth great-grandfather died in 1862 aged 85, and when I went poking about to see how unusual that was, I discovered the life expectancy of a 60-year-old man has increased by only about five years between 1850 and now.

[kalvado]

A crude example, but hopefully it explains things. No, I do not intend it to be real-life example.

Imagine a small town where every family has 2 kids, and the trend continues for many year.
1800: there is an average of 2 generations per family
1950: grandparents become more common, the average family is now 3 generations
2020: great-grandparents are more common, 4 generations per family is not unusual.

Population did double  - purely due to people living longer.

And just to add:  a large part of the reason for the longer life expectancy is reduced infant mortality.  My Scottish fourth great-grandfather died in 1862 aged 85, and when I went poking about to see how unusual that was, I discovered the life expectancy of a 60-year-old man has increased by only about five years between 1850 and now.

The way I heard about it, back then people who survived childhood had a pretty constant probability of dying the next year, which slightly increased with age. That is in contrast with today's pretty low adult mortality which skyrockets after 70. So lots of people died of conditions that would be readily treatable or preventable today.

[kkt]

We studied this in human geography class.  Yes, prior to the modern era of good prenatal care, practical C-sections when needed, better infant formulas, antibiotics, and most of all childhood immunizations childhood deaths were very common.  On a percentage of deaths each year, infancy was the most dangerous time of life.  Deaths were higher all life long and bumped up starting age 50+, but it was still not that unusual to live to the 80s.  There's even one person in my family tree who lived from 1785-1891.

[MultiMillionMiler]

https://albums.memento.com/down94231/p/63fa89c89d61951cb6242ca3

This is a funny pair of road signs next to each other.

What's weird is how not only the minimum speed limit on the parkway is higher than the minimum speed on the interstate right next to it (which is only 40) but how I can only use about 7% of my entire speedometer on it.

[Scott5114]

Minimum speed signs are normally posted near speed limit signs. When Oklahoma had them, they were stacked vertically. Kansas puts theirs on the same sign.

[MultiMillionMiler]

I was referring to the narrow range of legal speeds, not how they were posted. 45/55 is basically suggesting to drivers to keep their eyes more on their speedometer than on the road. There's a similar set of signs on Sunrise Highway near Quogue, but here's the kicker: The maximum speed limit drops to 45 in a construction zone, but the minimum speed is still 40!

[kkt]

The minimum speed limit is always subject to safe conditions.  If you get a ticket for going too slowly where you don't think it was safe to go faster, tell it to the judge.  I bet it'll be the most interesting case the traffic court judge has seen that day.

[dlsterner]

https://albums.memento.com/down94231/p/63fa89c89d61951cb6242ca3

This is a funny pair of road signs next to each other.

What's weird is how not only the minimum speed limit on the parkway is higher than the minimum speed on the interstate right next to it (which is only 40) but how I can only use about 7% of my entire speedometer on it.

Minimum speed signs are normally posted near speed limit signs. When Oklahoma had them, they were stacked vertically. Kansas puts theirs on the same sign.

Remember Scott - this is the person who thought that the posted number was both the minimum and maximum speed, and that you have to drive exactly that?

I understand that, but isn't it true that if there's no minimum speed posted, you have to drive exactly the maximum speed? In other words, the speed limit functions as both the minimum and maximum speed limit unless a separate minimum speed is otherwise posted?

If not, they should be more clear and include the word "MAXIMUM" on the sign, or at least a less than or equal to sign above the number.

[kirbykart]

When I first saw this I thought it was a bug crawling across my phone screen.

[Max Rockatansky]

The minimum speed limit is always subject to safe conditions.  If you get a ticket for going too slowly where you don't think it was safe to go faster, tell it to the judge.  I bet it'll be the most interesting case the traffic court judge has seen that day.

There's no "traffic court" judges. Traffic violations are handled in criminal court just like any other case.

I'm sure holding criminal trails for traffic citations won't hold up to the criminal justice system in the slightest.

[Max Rockatansky]

What do you think traffic laws are? Civil offenses LOL

Do you think there are whole courthouses just build to handle traffic tickets LMAO

Just because they are infractions doesn't mean you can't receive the same penalties for misdemeanors. Here in NY, you can yet 15 days in jail for going 11 mph over the limit and 30 days for going 30+ mph over the limit. Sure that won't happen 99.999% of the time, but the point is a court is a court, and a judge is a judge, there are no "traffic positions" a prosecutor/judge can apply to.

You're the one demanding traffic citations be heard in actual criminal proceedings LOL/LMAO! 

[Max Rockatansky]

The minimum speed limit is always subject to safe conditions.  If you get a ticket for going too slowly where you don't think it was safe to go faster, tell it to the judge.  I bet it'll be the most interesting case the traffic court judge has seen that day.

There's no "traffic court" judges. Traffic violations are handled in criminal court just like any other case.

[kkt]

What your describing may (or may not) be true in New York, but it is not universally true.

If traffic violations are civil offenses, how come you can get sentenced to jail time for them?

[ethanhopkin14]

What your describing may (or may not) be true in New York, but it is not universally true.

If traffic violations are civil offenses, how come you can get sentenced to jail time for them?

You can get sued for speeding!

[kkt]

What your describing may (or may not) be true in New York, but it is not universally true.

If traffic violations are civil offenses, how come you can get sentenced to jail time for them?

You can get sued for speeding!

Sure you can, but when you do they're limited to money damages, not jail time.

[kalvado]

What your describing may (or may not) be true in New York, but it is not universally true.

If traffic violations are civil offenses, how come you can get sentenced to jail time for them?

You can get sued for speeding!

Sure you can, but when you do they're limited to money damages, not jail time.

License suspension and revocation may be on the table as well.

[ethanhopkin14]

What your describing may (or may not) be true in New York, but it is not universally true.

If traffic violations are civil offenses, how come you can get sentenced to jail time for them?

You can get sued for speeding!

Sure you can, but when you do they're limited to money damages, not jail time.

You speed, you get caught by the police, you get sued and have to pay the old man that runs the barber shop you sped by $3.8 million. 

[MultiMillionMiler]

Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on February 27, 2023, 09:38:17 PM
If I trying to go exactly 75 mph, it harder to keep the needle exactly on a 5 mph smaller mark than to hit the cruise control once the digital number reads 75
Not really... I'm frequently able to maintain a 5 mph interval speed, 70, 75, 80 mph, etc. on the dot with just my foot on the gas petal... then this incredible thing called cruise control also exists that will hold the speed.

And if you want to decrease by +1 or -1, click the up and down button on your steering wheel...

It's not about how easy it is to maintain the speed, it's about knowing that you are maintaining the actual speed you want to maintain. And even with cruise control, it doesn't stay exactly on the speed, there's a 2-3 mph temporary variance when it hits a hill for example. It doesn't perfectly maintain the exact same speed continuously. It's dangerous to not know how fast you are going due to faulty car equipment or sloppy cruise control.