"Intended" is not "current" or "actual". Nonattainment is determined by what the EPA actually determines, under the procedures it has defined under the CAA. It's not determined by what the EPA says it might do in the future.
Maybe you should link to it, rather than flatly contradicting published reports of the EPA's determination in December that Racine county was in nonattainment.
This is the December letter that your sources incorrectly described as saying that Racine County was in nonattainment.
Maybe you should read the letter from the EPA to Wisconsin, which makes it clear that they never declared Racine County to be in nonattainment.
As for what air pollution does, it also doesn't follow county boundaries, but that is by far the most common way that the EPA declares which areas need to use stricter emissions controls. Prevailing winds might carry Chicago's pollution farther north rather than sending it ashore in Racine County. The bit to the south of Racine is part of Milwaukee, which can obviously produce quite a bit of its own smog.
If I went to court for this case, it would only be so I could laugh at Madigan when the judge throws the case out and ask how much taxpayers money she wasted on a futile political stunt.
Says who? The EPA didn't list Racine County under the 2008 standards, didn't list it under the initial list of nonattainment areas for the 2015 standards, and didn't list it under the additional areas list that was just published. Well after the Foxconn plant was announced, the EPA told Wisconsin they expected to list Racine County as a nonattainment area, but later changed their mind.
Since Madigan apparently missed the lecture on Chevron deference during law school, I'll point out here that courts are extremely deferential to regulatory agency decisions. The EPA described their process and the factors they consider in determining which areas are in nonattainment. The EPA is not required to make that determination based only on whatever measurements you think support your case. "If you don't like the way the Clear Air Act works, then build the political coalition necessary to change it."
If a Chicago politician really wanted to reduce ozone levels in that part of Wisconsin, they would push for Chicago area polluters to reduce pollution. In fact, Chicago is also an ozone nonattainment area; she could challenge that in court. She isn't doing that.
Also, it's beyond stupid to say that every other county in the nation follows those regulations. Chicago doesn't. NYC doesn't. Itty bitty Indian tribes and bands don't. The list of nonattainment areas is as long as your arm.
The county cannot meet the standards currently, mostly because of pollution from elsewhere (like Chicago) that is carried to the county by wind. Since the EPA started regulating ozone levels in 1979, at least one county in that part of Wisconsin has been a "nonattainment region" for the same reason. Why should a business in Wisconsin have to install expensive equipment to limit pollution when the problem is caused by polluters in other states?
The important thing is that he is a "climate denier", as the headline says. You've seen the evidence for the climate, so have I. Anyone who denies that the climate exists has no business being in charge of NASA!
Every US flight I've been on in the last 10 years strongly encourages passengers to keep their seat belts buckled whenever they are seated, specifically because of the risk of turbulence. I haven't done a scientific study, but I think most passengers do stay buckled up. The most frequent exceptions would be pre-school-aged children, and sometimes their parents.
Probably the Second Avenue Subway. Started in the 1920s, so if they're in the middle of it now, we can expect it done by the early 22nd century. Which is about par for the course given (union heel-dragging|Republican budget cuts).
If your team can "do agile right" on a project, it can probably be just as successful using almost any process. Conversely, most projects are harder with agile than with other processes. So there is seldom, if ever, a good reason to do agile -- unless Zed A. Shaw would think you're a bad guy.
If no one is specifically looking for the delivery, why in the world would you do it? It sounds like it's not a priority to any user.
The important reason to estimate work in advance is because it lets you align budgets with objectives and schedules. The estimates need to be somewhat reliable, so you need to do them often enough that you can get them right. As a side benefit, grossly wrong estimates are a sign to ask what went wrong, so you can do better next time.
They already have solutions for that. For example, Baltimore police are now on trial for corruption, and according to testimony from one of them (plus independent evidence) part of that was carrying realistic toy guns to plant on people they shot.
The reasons US life expectancy is lower are not much related to the health care system unless you think drug overdose, suicide, car accidents, etc. are failures of the health care system. Only about 4% of US bankruptcies are caused by medical bills -- if you read the Warren et al. papers claiming higher rates, you find they are self-rebutting. (For example, they asked for potentially multiple causes of the bankruptcies they studied, with medical expenses being one of those causes, and then they added a bunch more bankruptcies to their "medical bankruptcies" group just to make that group larger.)
We won't know how it works until it actually goes to court
You are arguing a contributory negligence theory, which only applies in four states. California has adopted "pure" comparative negligence, which would allow the driver's estate or family to seek damages from Tesla (but I would guess not California, due to sovereign immunity).
Conceivably, the courts could change how they rule starting with this case -- but I am pretty sure they won't.
Tesla's software is what steered the car into the barrier. Case closed.
CalDOT did not repair a crash barrier as required by law, causing a probably unnecessary fatality. Case closed.
If the driver is not attentive or interacting enough, the car could have turned the driver assistance features off. If Tesla didn't want to do that because it wanted to look high-tech and smart, the car could decelerate to the minimum of the posted speed limit or 40 mph -- most drivers will re-engage pretty quickly if they're going that slowly on a highway.
There are a lot of ways the car could have reacted safely in these conditions. It carried out what was probably the least safe practical option.
I think the driver was fatally stupid for ignoring warnings and for being inattentive on a stretch of road where he knew the Autopilot feature was error-prone, and I'm glad he didn't get anyone else killed. I think Tesla is skirting the boundaries of irresponsibility by aggressively deploying that feature when everyone else in the auto industry thinks the technology isn't quite ready yet, and in not doing things like coasting to a stop as soon as the driver lets go of the wheel (or something).
In this particular case, the driver is more at fault, but Tesla also needs to do more because even partial responsibility for 60% of crashes translates to a heavy total responsibility.
(Also, a 40% reduction in crashes could probably be achieved without the Autopilot feature, just by combinations of driver assistance tech like adaptive cruise control, lane maintenance, attention monitoring, wheel grip detection, and so forth. We don't have to pick exactly one of "Autopilot" or "baseline crash rate".)
Judging from photos of the crash, the actual lane markings in question are reasonably well-maintained -- complaints about the overall state of lane markers in the US are not very relevant. Beyond that, the car did not merely run off the road; it ran into a concrete barrier. If visibility was as good as Tesla claims, why didn't the car find a path that did not involve driving into a fairly tall object?
I'm seriously not saying that, and have no idea where you got that strawman. Also, the US currently has on the order of 35000 traffic fatalities per year. A 99% reduction would leave 350 deaths per year, not 3000.
Slashdot Mirror
"Intended" is not "current" or "actual". Nonattainment is determined by what the EPA actually determines, under the procedures it has defined under the CAA. It's not determined by what the EPA says it might do in the future.
This is the December letter that your sources incorrectly described as saying that Racine County was in nonattainment.
Maybe you should read the letter from the EPA to Wisconsin, which makes it clear that they never declared Racine County to be in nonattainment.
As for what air pollution does, it also doesn't follow county boundaries, but that is by far the most common way that the EPA declares which areas need to use stricter emissions controls. Prevailing winds might carry Chicago's pollution farther north rather than sending it ashore in Racine County. The bit to the south of Racine is part of Milwaukee, which can obviously produce quite a bit of its own smog.
If I went to court for this case, it would only be so I could laugh at Madigan when the judge throws the case out and ask how much taxpayers money she wasted on a futile political stunt.
Says who? The EPA didn't list Racine County under the 2008 standards, didn't list it under the initial list of nonattainment areas for the 2015 standards, and didn't list it under the additional areas list that was just published. Well after the Foxconn plant was announced, the EPA told Wisconsin they expected to list Racine County as a nonattainment area, but later changed their mind.
Since Madigan apparently missed the lecture on Chevron deference during law school, I'll point out here that courts are extremely deferential to regulatory agency decisions. The EPA described their process and the factors they consider in determining which areas are in nonattainment. The EPA is not required to make that determination based only on whatever measurements you think support your case. "If you don't like the way the Clear Air Act works, then build the political coalition necessary to change it."
If a Chicago politician really wanted to reduce ozone levels in that part of Wisconsin, they would push for Chicago area polluters to reduce pollution. In fact, Chicago is also an ozone nonattainment area; she could challenge that in court. She isn't doing that.
Also, it's beyond stupid to say that every other county in the nation follows those regulations. Chicago doesn't. NYC doesn't. Itty bitty Indian tribes and bands don't. The list of nonattainment areas is as long as your arm.
Are you sure that the OP wasn't talking about an epidemic of bullet lead?
The county cannot meet the standards currently, mostly because of pollution from elsewhere (like Chicago) that is carried to the county by wind. Since the EPA started regulating ozone levels in 1979, at least one county in that part of Wisconsin has been a "nonattainment region" for the same reason. Why should a business in Wisconsin have to install expensive equipment to limit pollution when the problem is caused by polluters in other states?
The important thing is that he is a "climate denier", as the headline says. You've seen the evidence for the climate, so have I. Anyone who denies that the climate exists has no business being in charge of NASA!
Someone who doesn't know what they're doing? And apparently Tesla's QA department, but maybe I repeat myself?
Republican budget cuts frequently get blamed for problems that they have nothing to do with. That was the joke, now stop being such a humorless scold.
Every US flight I've been on in the last 10 years strongly encourages passengers to keep their seat belts buckled whenever they are seated, specifically because of the risk of turbulence. I haven't done a scientific study, but I think most passengers do stay buckled up. The most frequent exceptions would be pre-school-aged children, and sometimes their parents.
Probably the Second Avenue Subway. Started in the 1920s, so if they're in the middle of it now, we can expect it done by the early 22nd century. Which is about par for the course given (union heel-dragging|Republican budget cuts).
"Conversational development? So you think standing around talking all day will get the project done? You're fired!"
And that's why it's called "agile" rather than "conversational".
If your team can "do agile right" on a project, it can probably be just as successful using almost any process. Conversely, most projects are harder with agile than with other processes. So there is seldom, if ever, a good reason to do agile -- unless Zed A. Shaw would think you're a bad guy.
If no one is specifically looking for the delivery, why in the world would you do it? It sounds like it's not a priority to any user.
The important reason to estimate work in advance is because it lets you align budgets with objectives and schedules. The estimates need to be somewhat reliable, so you need to do them often enough that you can get them right. As a side benefit, grossly wrong estimates are a sign to ask what went wrong, so you can do better next time.
They already have solutions for that. For example, Baltimore police are now on trial for corruption, and according to testimony from one of them (plus independent evidence) part of that was carrying realistic toy guns to plant on people they shot.
The reasons US life expectancy is lower are not much related to the health care system unless you think drug overdose, suicide, car accidents, etc. are failures of the health care system. Only about 4% of US bankruptcies are caused by medical bills -- if you read the Warren et al. papers claiming higher rates, you find they are self-rebutting. (For example, they asked for potentially multiple causes of the bankruptcies they studied, with medical expenses being one of those causes, and then they added a bunch more bankruptcies to their "medical bankruptcies" group just to make that group larger.)
Where do they claim they're on the side of the people? Their whole statement is essentially longhand for "we do propaganda".
You are arguing a contributory negligence theory, which only applies in four states. California has adopted "pure" comparative negligence, which would allow the driver's estate or family to seek damages from Tesla (but I would guess not California, due to sovereign immunity).
Conceivably, the courts could change how they rule starting with this case -- but I am pretty sure they won't.
None of that is how legal or moral liability works in the United States generally, or in California specifically.
Tesla's software is what steered the car into the barrier. Case closed.
CalDOT did not repair a crash barrier as required by law, causing a probably unnecessary fatality. Case closed.
If the driver is not attentive or interacting enough, the car could have turned the driver assistance features off. If Tesla didn't want to do that because it wanted to look high-tech and smart, the car could decelerate to the minimum of the posted speed limit or 40 mph -- most drivers will re-engage pretty quickly if they're going that slowly on a highway.
There are a lot of ways the car could have reacted safely in these conditions. It carried out what was probably the least safe practical option.
It is very clearly an AI. Just not a good attempt, at least not yet.
I think the driver was fatally stupid for ignoring warnings and for being inattentive on a stretch of road where he knew the Autopilot feature was error-prone, and I'm glad he didn't get anyone else killed. I think Tesla is skirting the boundaries of irresponsibility by aggressively deploying that feature when everyone else in the auto industry thinks the technology isn't quite ready yet, and in not doing things like coasting to a stop as soon as the driver lets go of the wheel (or something).
In this particular case, the driver is more at fault, but Tesla also needs to do more because even partial responsibility for 60% of crashes translates to a heavy total responsibility.
(Also, a 40% reduction in crashes could probably be achieved without the Autopilot feature, just by combinations of driver assistance tech like adaptive cruise control, lane maintenance, attention monitoring, wheel grip detection, and so forth. We don't have to pick exactly one of "Autopilot" or "baseline crash rate".)
Judging from photos of the crash, the actual lane markings in question are reasonably well-maintained -- complaints about the overall state of lane markers in the US are not very relevant. Beyond that, the car did not merely run off the road; it ran into a concrete barrier. If visibility was as good as Tesla claims, why didn't the car find a path that did not involve driving into a fairly tall object?
I'm seriously not saying that, and have no idea where you got that strawman. Also, the US currently has on the order of 35000 traffic fatalities per year. A 99% reduction would leave 350 deaths per year, not 3000.