It is not clear at all that this is a case of lowering the bar; IMO that verges on an inability to engage critically with the issue under discussion.
It looks to me to be exploring a different way of presenting the subject matter that tries to answer the "how would I ever use this information" questions so commonly heard about hard sciences.
You're displaying a serious lack of reading comprehension. End of life care provided by palliative specialists is completely different to "scammers who absorb so much cash that they prevent real cures from being researched" and "people who squander their family's financial future on magic beans in futile attempt to live, but die anyway".
From what I read, the things that actually caused the issue were selecting a safety margin of 15% of estimated range, and failure to consult a weather forecast despite being fully aware of the effect of low temps on the EV traction battery.
You could replace "gas stove" above with literally any obsolete product with no impact on how your statement reads - which means it's not a very good argument in favour of gas stoves.
Consider: "I like my sundial. It tells the time well and quickly. It’s not very expensive to operate. I hope my next timekeeping device has similar functionality. Busybodies are never satisfied."
This is clearly a case of market failure where the current users of gas are not paying the full costs associated with that use, and where full information on the impacts of using gas are not always known.
For example, between 6 and 19% of current childhood asthma in the US is attributable to gas stove use.[1] What parent would choose a gas stove if they knew there was a 1 in 20 to 1 in 5 chance that they would cause their child to have asthma?
> For example, between 6 and 19% of current childhood asthma in the US is attributable to gas stove use.[1] What parent would choose a gas stove if they knew there was a 1 in 20 to 1 in 5 chance that they would cause their child to have asthma?
Those odds only make sense if 100% of children have asthma. I believe the probability would actually be 0.4% to 1.8% given CDC child asthma prevalence figures[1]. I'm terrible at math though.
Again, that problem is better and more cheaply solved with adequate ventilation. And quality household ventilation not only removes natural gas byproducts in the air, it also removes CO2 buildup, dust, cleaning chemicals / VOCs, respiratory viruses, etc. Many benefits for much less cost than a gas -> induction stove retrofit.
Disagree that it's cheaper to retrofit quality household ventilation compared to changing stove types.
The cost of the heat exchanger alone is likely to exceed the cost of entry level portable induction cookers. Now add in costs to run ducting, cut through walls, seal the penetrations etc.
Of course, things are different at scale, and there's no reason we can't have a world where quality household ventilation, and less-harmful cooking stoves are both mandated.
The ventilation retrofit is likely much cheaper for any home that already has central HVAC. I would know this because I did that exact upgrade on my home and spent <$2500 to have a professional install a high end oversized ERV to replace the inefficient ventilator that was installed per code. If you don't have central HVAC, of course it's much more difficult, but most US homes from the past 40+ years have central HVAC.
An induction stove, on the other hand, would require me to rip open a bunch of walls to run a new 220V line from my outdoor electrical panel (the garage subpanel doesn't have sufficient 220V running to it), remove or shut off the existing gas line, and install a many-thousand dollar cooktop to come close to the cooking quality I get from my modern gas range.
OP posted a since-the-dawn-of-time complaint about automatic updates that ignores why they are necessary, and clearly states that he's just refusing to engage with the usual reasons for them.
The "generic" response is beacuse the complaint is simiarly generic.
Sorry, I'm not sure I'm parsing this right, you're saying "security updates are necessary and I as a user am going to have worse outcomes for not updating my stuff"?
My personal experience does not match this at all, so is the explanation there that I'm just lucky?
Sorry for the reply to my own reply here but I'm genuinely incredibly curious for someone to explain to me why updates are necessary. It really seems like a cargo cult thing to me but I'm not the smartest person and if someone can explain to me where I'm doing my threat model/attack surface analysis incorrectly I'd love to learn.
>I'm genuinely incredibly curious for someone to explain to me why updates are necessary.
Because software is never finished. There are always bugs to fix, new platforms to support, new features to be added, more polish to be added, etc. It is the developers goal to have the quality of their software to go up over time.
It is in developers interest for their users to remain secure, not experience bugs, have a good experience, and to solve a problem or need they have. Updates to applications try and address one or more of these things.
If making the user's life better is a cargo cult thing. Then maybe that cargo cult isn't such a bad thing.
If you are specifically talking about why should you care about a chrome 0day patch because you've never visited a shady site that tried to exploit it then the reason is that it's important for the ecosystem to be seen as secure. You want to make it as least financially viable to exploit Chrome as possible, you want to ensure people think of the web as a secure platform they can use without being afraid, as Google you want to avoid bad PR about a big hack. The first point is important. You want to increase the customer acquisition cost for an attacker which is "the cost to get a visitor divided by the chance a user's browser has not gotten the patch yet." (In proctice different demographics may have different patch rates which lowers the CAC my targeting that demographic) Google's lever for increasing an attacker's CAC is to use autoupdates to lower the chance. When CAC > LCV (lifetime customer value) then the attacker does not have a financial incentive to compromise users and this results in a large drop in the rate of attacks. The required updates remove the incentives to use the attacks which is why you feel like you aren't being targeted.
It's like how some management don't understand the value of a system administrator because when a system administrator does their job correctly everything appears to just work. When security updates are properly going out it may feel like they are unneccessary, but that just means that the defenders are doing a good job.
In the first bit you have not described why updates are necessary, you've given some reasons why updates can be useful. Opting into updates sometimes is fine. The context of the parent and grandparent posts is specifically security and security updates.
Security wise for most applications there's the oft overlooked possibility of just not connecting to the internet. Though when it comes to my personal experience running antivirusless Windows with updates disabled it has not been a problem for me for a decade now. According to my router I'm not part of a botnet either. It just doesn't seem necessary at all. Your attack surface as an individual on a reasonably well secured network is minuscule and your threat model is basically just the background radiation of bots trying whatever random exploits. Sure, I keep my router patched because it's on the edge, but other than that it doesn't matter.
Though I will give you that browsers are a special case where the tool is specifically used all the time to connect to potentially hostile content and give that content the ability to execute code on your machine. Things on the edge are a scenario where keeping up with security patches actually make sense.
If you're willing to share, I'd be interested to see your custom notebook design. I've recently been laying out a few custom productivity "things" - like a continuous calendar - and can always do with more ideas.
A vehicle under direct sun will get hotter than if it's under a roof made of solar panels. Insulating the underside of the panels will reduce their lifespan.
A difficult proposal to defend. Even if we skip the enormous problems of proving the existence of a "[creator of] mankind", which deity did you have in mind?
It looks to me to be exploring a different way of presenting the subject matter that tries to answer the "how would I ever use this information" questions so commonly heard about hard sciences.