That's hard to do, and requires a lot of time, money, and effort to get right. Even then it's a crapshoot, like trying to write a popular song.
You're significantly overstating the difficulty of writing a popular song. I know how to write catchy tunes that people like, it's not particularly difficult. What is difficult is getting them heard by enough people to matter, and that's where money and power come into the equation -- people "smarter than you" have decided what the next big thing will be, and most of the listening public goes along with it. Producing good ads is a fair bit more difficult, because a popular song doesn't have to worry about the people that absolutely hate it, while an ad does have to avoid strong negative reactions in even a small portion of the prospective customer base. Ads (ideally) also have to convey actual information so that people know what to buy. A catchy song still works even if people can't tell you what all the lyrics were. (Louie Louie and Smells Like Teen Spirit instantly pop into my head.)
What's hilarious is the ads are showing me the chair I bought (creepy yes) but that chair is no longer of interest to me for purchase. And it continues doing so for the next month or more.
This isn't totally insane. If you buy something and like it, you are probably more inclined to buy another one if you have a need for another one. If that chair you just bought was an office chair, you may want to furnish more than one office, or you may want one for the workshop, or you may want your partner to get the same upgrade as you. If it's a car, then advertising to you after the fact is probably pointless.
Personally, I know I bought a monitor and found that I rather liked it. I kept getting ads for the same model, and I was glad to be informed that someone had gotten a new stock of them (as they were discontinued and increasingly difficult to find), and even slightly cheaper than the first one. I bought another one and put it in a different room in a "mirror" configuration so I could move from room to room without any interruption in workflow. I wish I had bought four of them, two for each room, because they're not available at all any more.
The case is similar with consumables. If you bought printer ink, you will eventually want more. It may be months or even years down the line, though. If you bought packaged food, there is a high probability you'll want more at some point in the near future. What's more questionable is continuing to push items that aren't going to be used up for quite a while, like wiper blades.
Also, the ads can get rather off-topic as a result of assuming all research concerns purchases. I'm as much a writer as musician these days, and I investigate things I don't actually want. This leads to things like getting ads for Vyvanse (an amphetamine prescribed for ADHD) for several months after I've found out all I wanted to know. I have to wonder what ads I'm going to start seeing soon, considering my latest research has been conducted to more accurately portray the effects of oxycodone withdrawals on my main character.
I was referring to pickup trucks, not rigs. There are plenty of cases where the old,naturally aspirated engines outperform the smaller turbo engines on heavy loads -- even in terms of fuel economy. Of course, it could be argued that most trucks are generally NOT heavily loaded and are used as if they were ordinary passenger vehicles, so designing to this usage is not improper. The problem here is that the vehicles are being used for ego enhancement rather than necessary capability when a smaller, lighter, more efficient, and quite possibly more nimble vehicle would be appropriate.
It is also not fair to compare big-block V-8s made out of pot metal to the 4 cylinder made out of aircraft-grade aluminum or at least a much better grade of steel (for the block). The materials have improved all around, and those improvements would benefit the V-8 as well. Try making that turbo-4 out of the crap Ford used to make engines 40 years ago, and it would be blowing up well short of 100k (see Hyundai Excel for examples).
Dear God, mechanical ignition. I remember having to roughly set breaker points in the dark with nothing more than a Swiss Army Knife just to limp home from somewhere.
Beating test cycles by engineering to the test is hardly a new phenomenon, and it is the bulk of why current EU tests are being replaced by new standards currently in development that are harder to game. Even with this improvement, expect some level of optimization for test conditions while either ignoring or even harming real world performance.
The relentless cycle beating has had a myriad of harmful effects beyond just not accomplishing the purpose.
* Regulators start to believe their emissions goals can actually be met, even when they realistically cannot while maintaining adequate driving performance. People just don't baby the throttle the way the NEDC does.
* Somehow, the problems the controls were intended to alleviate aren't getting any better, so they crank them down tighter. The engineering gets even more optimized for the test. The cars get nice "green" certifications, and everyone wonders where the smog is coming from.
* Often, this engineering means smaller engines and turbos, which inevitably don't last as long as the larger displacement engines they replace. It also means increased mechanical complexity. Guess who picks up the tab for this? Us.
* The smaller, boosted engines may do just fine in emissions testing, and even performance testing on the dyno, but often they are not as good as the larger, naturally aspirated engines they replace for real-world tasks. This is particularly true with trucks, where you'll see V-8s being replaced by turbo-4s. They may still have the same or even better power on paper, but they now have spool-up lag and have to operate in a higher RPM range to haul cargo and/or passengers, and really can struggle with towing loads due to the lesser torque.
I have a bluetooth speaker. My phone is paired with it. I can listen to music from my phone or ipad on it via bluetooth. However, due to an accident, the input jack on the speaker (headphone size) is broken, so I am ONLY able to listen to music by pairing it.
Open it up and solder on a new one. If necessary, chop up one of these and solder it on (if the board is too damaged to simply put on a new jack). It's not exactly a hack, more of a mere repair, but it seems to me that if you aren't in a position to repair it, you aren't in a position to hack it either.
Validation of AU (Audio Units) Plug-ins Fails in Logic Pro X
All Native Instruments Audio Units plug-ins will not pass the AU validation and therefore will not be available in Logic Pro X under OS X 10.11. The root cause of this issue has been identified and a workaround is still being developed in close contact with Apple. We will keep you updated on any developments regarding this issue.
I cannot confirm or deny anything, I'm a humble Windows user and the only NI product I use is Kontakt.
Man, how long I was calling that one "make make" instead of "ma kay ma kay"...
English is a bitch that way. Is "read" pronounced "reed" or "red"? Is "lead" pronounced "leed" or "led"? Depends on context. Just ask Sean Bean. (Seen Been? Shawn Bawn?) We need disambiguating accents, dammit -- and to stop retaining spellings intact when rifling through the pockets of other languages for vocabulary.
I got a notice from Native Instruments warning against upgrading to El Capitan, as a number of their products don't work with it either. Apparently something about the sound driver model was changed. The result of trying isn't just failure, but complete kernel panics.
Is the typical OS X upgrade this perilous? I don't recall hearing warnings like this before.
Also, wouldn't you expect that a body with life on it should be classified as a planet, even if it is orbiting Jupiter?
Like Pandora? (Fictional, but relevant.)
No. What does life have to do with the definition of a planet or a moon? There's quite a good chance there are life-bearing moons Out There, quite possibly within our own solar system. That has fuckall to do with their physical characteristics or orbital mechanics.
The reason the IAU doesn't want to tackle extrasolar planets is pretty simple: while we know they exist, and have even imaged a small number of them directly, we really don't know that much about them. Is what we detect typical of the population, or is it an artifact of our detection methods? Do they have moons? Since we can't even pin down their characteristics yet, it doesn't make sense to attempt to make up standards for classifying them yet either. Yet. I'm pretty sure that at the very least, the planet/moon distinction will be carried over to other systems.
The ancients did not know about Uranus (as far as we know, it may have been detected and later forgotten) because it's not visible all the time, making it hard to track without photography. But it is naked-eye visible some of the time. It's also frigging huge, enough so that the orbital dances of Uranus and Neptune have had massive effects on the evolution of the entire system. Any definition of planet that excludes the two ice giants is willfully ignoring their significance. If it turns out there is another Earth-mass object out there substantially directing the evolution of the Sednoids, it would indeed be fair to argue that it too is a planet. It is busy clearing its neighborhood, however slowly.
As for lumping the terrestrial planets and the gas/ice giants under one name, you have a point. If the IAU demanded that they have two different (but short and easily spoken) names, I'd be happy to go with that.
I agree that the time spent arguing should be minimized. However, I disagree with the "leave it alone" idea to not arguing. Sometimes getting a definition in place now (and fighting over it) saves a lot of squabbling over what gets included later. There's a reason Eris is called that, you know. Discovery of the existence of another Pluto-size object threw the entire classification scheme into chaos. It can be argued the current definition is vague and arbitrary. That's fine, it is, and it will probably have to be tweaked later. Most notably, the use of "dwarf planet" is confusing. (It would have been better perhaps to elevate the eight big ones to "major planets".) My argument is with the people who want "anything my nostalgia says is a planet" to be the definition of a planet.
Extrasolar planets are subject to one rule and one rule only thus far: can we tell they exist? It so happens that Pluto-size objects in Pluto-size orbits are well beyond our current detection capabilities, so there is little reason to invoke any other definition, but the use of the word "planet" inside and outside our own system is admittedly inconsistent. It may and probably will matter at some point, but not yet.
These other objects have a name: Dwarf Planets. I will grant that this is moderately confusing, as you would expect anything with "planet" in its name to be a subset of "planets" as a whole, thus I've never cared for this nomenclature. However, it's pretty clear to my eyes that Pluto and Charon are Kuiper Belt Objects, fundamentally unlike the rocky inner planets or the enormous gas and ice giant outer planets. The fact that Pluto turns out to be pretty damn interesting doesn't make it not a KBO. It seems pretty apparent there is a need to distinguish between what are currently deemed planets, and everything else. If you wanted to call the eight current planets "major planets" and everything else just "planets", fine, whatever -- but you seem to be denying that there is any reason to draw the distinction at all. There is. For the most part, planets are visible to the naked eye. Inner planets are small, but close enough (to the sun, and to us) to be bright. The outer planets are large enough to make up for the increased distance. Neptune admittedly requires some optical assistance to spot, but it's so much like its cousin Uranus that it again becomes an argument over where to draw boundaries. Neptune has had a significant effect on the dynamics of the system as a whole. It was discovered because of the perturbations it was causing elsewhere, and likely had a great deal to do with scattering all those KBOs in the first place (as well as capturing one for itself). There is no such claim for Pluto. It is little more than a blob to the HST.
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite pleased we sent a probe there. I'm even more pleased it has returned results that are greatly in excess of expectations. We will find out with the trip past the next KBO whether it's typical. (If the next one is boring, that doesn't really tell us which of the two is typical, but if the next one shows similar signs of resurfacing, it's probably a safe bet that this is the rule rather than the exception.) That still doesn't mean it requires the use of the word "planet".
We can, when you're willing to call Vesta, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, Eris, Sedna, Sila-Nunam, Varuna, Quaoar, Ocrus, Ixion, and likely hundreds of other objects of similar size to Pluto (yet to be identified, as the Kuiper Belt and scattered disc are large search spaces) planets as well.
In order to retain the use of the word "planet" in a context that is relatively closely related to its historical usage, a line has to be drawn somewhere. It is far more logical to draw that line above Pluto than below it. If you are advocating for every object which is large enough to pull itself into hydrostatic equilibrium by gravity, and is not in orbit around another non-stellar object a planet -- you're going to have upwards of 100 of them, and that's just what we know of right now.
There are three classes of business in China. 1. State-sponsored or owned businesses. Short of a scandal like the melamine dog food one, they can get away with practically anything. No foreign interest can hold them accountable. 2. State-sanctioned businesses. They've paid off the right people to look the other way, but if scrutiny becomes too great, they'll be thrown under the bus -- but only after high-ranking officials cash out, of course. 3. Everyone else. They have to play on a field with Calvinball rules and moving goalposts.
Sometimes joint ventures with foreign companies can make their way into class 2. Often they're allowed to languish in Class 3, especially if they're exporting everything they make.
Aviation engines especially - they're extremely big for the power. (160 cu. in., or over 5L, and it produces a mere... 140hp?).
Check your conversions again. 5 liters is about 300 cubic inches, as anyone with an old-school V-8 is likely to know. Thus, one or the other of your numbers is off. 160 cubic inches is not a large engine.
Then they get their little flag in the VIN database, the owner re-flashes the old profile, and life goes on. Only now the owner is on the hook for the "performance modifications", not VW, should someone call the discrepancies into question.
Automakers routinely game the tests, they just do so "legally" by engineering to the test at the expense of real-world use. This is exactly why not just the EU but the US and the rest of the world are trying to compile a test that actually reflects driving conditions: WLTP. VW got caught first, but don't expect them to be the only ones revealed at gaming the system. It will be legal, but you will see that almost nobody can make a diesel engine that simultaneously meets the mandates of fuel economy and low emissions without pricing it well above other options. As fuel economy standards continue to tighten, expect to see the pinch affect gasoline engines as well.
The real problem with all this cycle-beating (as opposed to VW's cycle-cheating) is that it gave the EU an overly optimistic view of what could actually be accomplished. Now that they're going to start using tests more representative of real-world usage, they are going to find that the numbers just can't be met. Goodbye >50% diesel market share.
The important thing is we get this socialist out of the white house before it's too late for all the white people to put humpty dumpty together again.
When the shit hits the fan, I guarantee you it won't just be "white people" putting things back together. In fact I'd dare say the demographics are going to skew a little darker at that point, because there are millions of "brown people" willing to get their hands dirty while effete arseholes like you sit back and point.
I suppose I should put a time frame on this so people have some idea what era of Pale Moon build I'm discussing. My swap-thrash incident is a whopping 13 days old now. I was streaming to ConnectCast at the time, and getting more than my usual number of decompression burps (where everything goes gray or green until the next keyframe), but didn't think to suspect the browser until I loaded up Task Manager in desperation.
I have a feeling it wouldn't have made that much difference if I had 16 GB of RAM rather than 8. It just would have postponed things a few hours, and possibly have made the thrashing twice as bad once it did set in. Maybe this is why Windows builds of Firefox are still 32 bit, they want to compartmentalize the damage a little bit.
Slashdot Mirror
That's hard to do, and requires a lot of time, money, and effort to get right. Even then it's a crapshoot, like trying to write a popular song.
You're significantly overstating the difficulty of writing a popular song. I know how to write catchy tunes that people like, it's not particularly difficult. What is difficult is getting them heard by enough people to matter, and that's where money and power come into the equation -- people "smarter than you" have decided what the next big thing will be, and most of the listening public goes along with it. Producing good ads is a fair bit more difficult, because a popular song doesn't have to worry about the people that absolutely hate it, while an ad does have to avoid strong negative reactions in even a small portion of the prospective customer base. Ads (ideally) also have to convey actual information so that people know what to buy. A catchy song still works even if people can't tell you what all the lyrics were. (Louie Louie and Smells Like Teen Spirit instantly pop into my head.)
What's hilarious is the ads are showing me the chair I bought (creepy yes) but that chair is no longer of interest to me for purchase. And it continues doing so for the next month or more.
This isn't totally insane. If you buy something and like it, you are probably more inclined to buy another one if you have a need for another one. If that chair you just bought was an office chair, you may want to furnish more than one office, or you may want one for the workshop, or you may want your partner to get the same upgrade as you. If it's a car, then advertising to you after the fact is probably pointless.
Personally, I know I bought a monitor and found that I rather liked it. I kept getting ads for the same model, and I was glad to be informed that someone had gotten a new stock of them (as they were discontinued and increasingly difficult to find), and even slightly cheaper than the first one. I bought another one and put it in a different room in a "mirror" configuration so I could move from room to room without any interruption in workflow. I wish I had bought four of them, two for each room, because they're not available at all any more.
The case is similar with consumables. If you bought printer ink, you will eventually want more. It may be months or even years down the line, though. If you bought packaged food, there is a high probability you'll want more at some point in the near future. What's more questionable is continuing to push items that aren't going to be used up for quite a while, like wiper blades.
Also, the ads can get rather off-topic as a result of assuming all research concerns purchases. I'm as much a writer as musician these days, and I investigate things I don't actually want. This leads to things like getting ads for Vyvanse (an amphetamine prescribed for ADHD) for several months after I've found out all I wanted to know. I have to wonder what ads I'm going to start seeing soon, considering my latest research has been conducted to more accurately portray the effects of oxycodone withdrawals on my main character.
I was referring to pickup trucks, not rigs. There are plenty of cases where the old,naturally aspirated engines outperform the smaller turbo engines on heavy loads -- even in terms of fuel economy. Of course, it could be argued that most trucks are generally NOT heavily loaded and are used as if they were ordinary passenger vehicles, so designing to this usage is not improper. The problem here is that the vehicles are being used for ego enhancement rather than necessary capability when a smaller, lighter, more efficient, and quite possibly more nimble vehicle would be appropriate.
It is also not fair to compare big-block V-8s made out of pot metal to the 4 cylinder made out of aircraft-grade aluminum or at least a much better grade of steel (for the block). The materials have improved all around, and those improvements would benefit the V-8 as well. Try making that turbo-4 out of the crap Ford used to make engines 40 years ago, and it would be blowing up well short of 100k (see Hyundai Excel for examples).
Dear God, mechanical ignition. I remember having to roughly set breaker points in the dark with nothing more than a Swiss Army Knife just to limp home from somewhere.
Twice.
I don't miss that at all.
Beating test cycles by engineering to the test is hardly a new phenomenon, and it is the bulk of why current EU tests are being replaced by new standards currently in development that are harder to game. Even with this improvement, expect some level of optimization for test conditions while either ignoring or even harming real world performance.
The relentless cycle beating has had a myriad of harmful effects beyond just not accomplishing the purpose.
Acuras typically do spec for Premium. I know when I had one, it didn't feel right on anything else.
I have a bluetooth speaker. My phone is paired with it. I can listen to music from my phone or ipad on it via bluetooth. However, due to an accident, the input jack on the speaker (headphone size) is broken, so I am ONLY able to listen to music by pairing it.
Open it up and solder on a new one. If necessary, chop up one of these and solder it on (if the board is too damaged to simply put on a new jack). It's not exactly a hack, more of a mere repair, but it seems to me that if you aren't in a position to repair it, you aren't in a position to hack it either.
Here's the specific notice I mentioned,, and they do have beta drivers for the hardware, but not yet for this:
Validation of AU (Audio Units) Plug-ins Fails in Logic Pro X
All Native Instruments Audio Units plug-ins will not pass the AU validation and therefore will not be available in Logic Pro X under OS X 10.11. The root cause of this issue has been identified and a workaround is still being developed in close contact with Apple. We will keep you updated on any developments regarding this issue.
I cannot confirm or deny anything, I'm a humble Windows user and the only NI product I use is Kontakt.
Man, how long I was calling that one "make make" instead of "ma kay ma kay"...
English is a bitch that way. Is "read" pronounced "reed" or "red"? Is "lead" pronounced "leed" or "led"? Depends on context. Just ask Sean Bean. (Seen Been? Shawn Bawn?) We need disambiguating accents, dammit -- and to stop retaining spellings intact when rifling through the pockets of other languages for vocabulary.
I got a notice from Native Instruments warning against upgrading to El Capitan, as a number of their products don't work with it either. Apparently something about the sound driver model was changed. The result of trying isn't just failure, but complete kernel panics.
Is the typical OS X upgrade this perilous? I don't recall hearing warnings like this before.
Also, wouldn't you expect that a body with life on it should be classified as a planet, even if it is orbiting Jupiter?
Like Pandora? (Fictional, but relevant.)
No. What does life have to do with the definition of a planet or a moon? There's quite a good chance there are life-bearing moons Out There, quite possibly within our own solar system. That has fuckall to do with their physical characteristics or orbital mechanics.
I've got a significant number of videos of fucking homos. None of them use cheating on NOx emissions tests as a major part of the plot.
Rule 34. You pointed it out, someone has to make it happen. It might as well be you.
The reason the IAU doesn't want to tackle extrasolar planets is pretty simple: while we know they exist, and have even imaged a small number of them directly, we really don't know that much about them. Is what we detect typical of the population, or is it an artifact of our detection methods? Do they have moons? Since we can't even pin down their characteristics yet, it doesn't make sense to attempt to make up standards for classifying them yet either. Yet. I'm pretty sure that at the very least, the planet/moon distinction will be carried over to other systems.
The ancients did not know about Uranus (as far as we know, it may have been detected and later forgotten) because it's not visible all the time, making it hard to track without photography. But it is naked-eye visible some of the time. It's also frigging huge, enough so that the orbital dances of Uranus and Neptune have had massive effects on the evolution of the entire system. Any definition of planet that excludes the two ice giants is willfully ignoring their significance. If it turns out there is another Earth-mass object out there substantially directing the evolution of the Sednoids, it would indeed be fair to argue that it too is a planet. It is busy clearing its neighborhood, however slowly.
As for lumping the terrestrial planets and the gas/ice giants under one name, you have a point. If the IAU demanded that they have two different (but short and easily spoken) names, I'd be happy to go with that.
I agree that the time spent arguing should be minimized. However, I disagree with the "leave it alone" idea to not arguing. Sometimes getting a definition in place now (and fighting over it) saves a lot of squabbling over what gets included later. There's a reason Eris is called that, you know. Discovery of the existence of another Pluto-size object threw the entire classification scheme into chaos. It can be argued the current definition is vague and arbitrary. That's fine, it is, and it will probably have to be tweaked later. Most notably, the use of "dwarf planet" is confusing. (It would have been better perhaps to elevate the eight big ones to "major planets".) My argument is with the people who want "anything my nostalgia says is a planet" to be the definition of a planet.
Extrasolar planets are subject to one rule and one rule only thus far: can we tell they exist? It so happens that Pluto-size objects in Pluto-size orbits are well beyond our current detection capabilities, so there is little reason to invoke any other definition, but the use of the word "planet" inside and outside our own system is admittedly inconsistent. It may and probably will matter at some point, but not yet.
These other objects have a name: Dwarf Planets. I will grant that this is moderately confusing, as you would expect anything with "planet" in its name to be a subset of "planets" as a whole, thus I've never cared for this nomenclature. However, it's pretty clear to my eyes that Pluto and Charon are Kuiper Belt Objects, fundamentally unlike the rocky inner planets or the enormous gas and ice giant outer planets. The fact that Pluto turns out to be pretty damn interesting doesn't make it not a KBO. It seems pretty apparent there is a need to distinguish between what are currently deemed planets, and everything else. If you wanted to call the eight current planets "major planets" and everything else just "planets", fine, whatever -- but you seem to be denying that there is any reason to draw the distinction at all. There is. For the most part, planets are visible to the naked eye. Inner planets are small, but close enough (to the sun, and to us) to be bright. The outer planets are large enough to make up for the increased distance. Neptune admittedly requires some optical assistance to spot, but it's so much like its cousin Uranus that it again becomes an argument over where to draw boundaries. Neptune has had a significant effect on the dynamics of the system as a whole. It was discovered because of the perturbations it was causing elsewhere, and likely had a great deal to do with scattering all those KBOs in the first place (as well as capturing one for itself). There is no such claim for Pluto. It is little more than a blob to the HST.
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite pleased we sent a probe there. I'm even more pleased it has returned results that are greatly in excess of expectations. We will find out with the trip past the next KBO whether it's typical. (If the next one is boring, that doesn't really tell us which of the two is typical, but if the next one shows similar signs of resurfacing, it's probably a safe bet that this is the rule rather than the exception.) That still doesn't mean it requires the use of the word "planet".
We can, when you're willing to call Vesta, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, Eris, Sedna, Sila-Nunam, Varuna, Quaoar, Ocrus, Ixion, and likely hundreds of other objects of similar size to Pluto (yet to be identified, as the Kuiper Belt and scattered disc are large search spaces) planets as well.
In order to retain the use of the word "planet" in a context that is relatively closely related to its historical usage, a line has to be drawn somewhere. It is far more logical to draw that line above Pluto than below it. If you are advocating for every object which is large enough to pull itself into hydrostatic equilibrium by gravity, and is not in orbit around another non-stellar object a planet -- you're going to have upwards of 100 of them, and that's just what we know of right now.
Xiaomi is presumably the second class. The only way a large company can operate without paying someone off is to export only.
There are three classes of business in China.
1. State-sponsored or owned businesses. Short of a scandal like the melamine dog food one, they can get away with practically anything. No foreign interest can hold them accountable.
2. State-sanctioned businesses. They've paid off the right people to look the other way, but if scrutiny becomes too great, they'll be thrown under the bus -- but only after high-ranking officials cash out, of course.
3. Everyone else. They have to play on a field with Calvinball rules and moving goalposts.
Sometimes joint ventures with foreign companies can make their way into class 2. Often they're allowed to languish in Class 3, especially if they're exporting everything they make.
Aviation engines especially - they're extremely big for the power. (160 cu. in., or over 5L, and it produces a mere... 140hp?).
Check your conversions again. 5 liters is about 300 cubic inches, as anyone with an old-school V-8 is likely to know. Thus, one or the other of your numbers is off. 160 cubic inches is not a large engine.
If getting caught was part of their plan, then was the next step crashing this company with no survivors?
Then they get their little flag in the VIN database, the owner re-flashes the old profile, and life goes on. Only now the owner is on the hook for the "performance modifications", not VW, should someone call the discrepancies into question.
Automakers routinely game the tests, they just do so "legally" by engineering to the test at the expense of real-world use. This is exactly why not just the EU but the US and the rest of the world are trying to compile a test that actually reflects driving conditions: WLTP. VW got caught first, but don't expect them to be the only ones revealed at gaming the system. It will be legal, but you will see that almost nobody can make a diesel engine that simultaneously meets the mandates of fuel economy and low emissions without pricing it well above other options. As fuel economy standards continue to tighten, expect to see the pinch affect gasoline engines as well.
The real problem with all this cycle-beating (as opposed to VW's cycle-cheating) is that it gave the EU an overly optimistic view of what could actually be accomplished. Now that they're going to start using tests more representative of real-world usage, they are going to find that the numbers just can't be met. Goodbye >50% diesel market share.
The important thing is we get this socialist out of the white house before it's too late for all the white people to put humpty dumpty together again.
When the shit hits the fan, I guarantee you it won't just be "white people" putting things back together. In fact I'd dare say the demographics are going to skew a little darker at that point, because there are millions of "brown people" willing to get their hands dirty while effete arseholes like you sit back and point.
I suppose I should put a time frame on this so people have some idea what era of Pale Moon build I'm discussing. My swap-thrash incident is a whopping 13 days old now. I was streaming to ConnectCast at the time, and getting more than my usual number of decompression burps (where everything goes gray or green until the next keyframe), but didn't think to suspect the browser until I loaded up Task Manager in desperation.
I have a feeling it wouldn't have made that much difference if I had 16 GB of RAM rather than 8. It just would have postponed things a few hours, and possibly have made the thrashing twice as bad once it did set in. Maybe this is why Windows builds of Firefox are still 32 bit, they want to compartmentalize the damage a little bit.