mikeheaton

No that’s literally what minimum safety standards are for, because we can’t expect consumers to do that effectively. And while imperfect they’ve been demonstrated over many decades to improve safety and public welfare. Also because if your front hood pops up and you swerve and crash your car, it puts other road users in danger not just your adult car owning sef.

> I do. Among other reasons, because the damages will far outweigh the sacrifices, if we don't prevent the worst consequences of climate change. But what we also need is a shift in mindset: Optimize for happiness and not for economic growth.

I agree you but I agree more with OP, but would rephrase: there’s zero chance that a sufficient majority of people will agree with reducing consumption. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter at all what you and I think would be better. If we really do want to prevent the worst damage of climate change then we’re beyond the point where we can rely on an extremely radical population-wide attitude shift occurring in the next few years.

I'm scandalized!

Eh. An interesting idea, but it starts being cranky as soon as it starts talking about the Gold Standard.

If the failure of this single point led to the loss of $114m, that counts as a SPoF in my book regardless of what the platonic ideal user “could” or “should” have done.

The real hipster move would be to use Capital Sigma or Pi for your equations.

I’m curious, how much is it then?

This sounds really interesting, I’d love a code.

I studied fractals for years. But it didn't matter how deeply I looked, they still looked just as complicated as ever.