It’s a mixed bag. Yes, if you’re flying with no luggage and you’re flying to and from a major metro area, it can be much cheaper than it has historically.

And remember, fees aren’t taxed like fares, so it’s also a way for the industry to underinvest in infrastructure.

Once you get to that point, yes. But as I’m sure you know, most pilots have to spend years in training, and more years getting experience at a regional carrier (a system invented to avoid labor costs) before getting called up to the majors.

As a proud not-southerner, I believe that the term “y’all” is the south’s only valid contribution to gender-neutral language.

The Edmunds article explains it in more detail, but all modern engines can detect knocking from lower-octane gas and derate the engine to make up for it.

Try Italy. It's this to the extreme. But I don't have any problem with it - the merging traffic has the responsibility to find a gap; people on the road already don't have to yield to them.

PennDOT did a study of this years ago. If traffic is light, the most efficient thing to do is merge early. It's only when traffic is already stop-and-go that the zipper merge is better. And anyway, doing a zipper merge doesn't give you license to cut people in line.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a California stop. We have way too many stop signs and so it makes a lot of sense to yield the right-of-way to everybody and then go without stopping. Saves time and fuel.

TVMOCABBSAO
“The vast majority of cops are bastards but some are OK.”

Once more the desire to keep gas prices low runs directly against government plans to combat climate change.

Sorta... I mean, the industry used to be regulated, then the industry was deregulated and all of the burden was placed on the individual “independent owner-operators.”

Almost like they should all get together to bargain collectively to secure better wages and benefits. Like some sort of... union.

What an asshole.

No, I’m just suggesting that speed isn’t actually a particularly useful variable on its own. It’s speed differential and the orderly versus disorderly nature of traffic flow that leads to different crash rates.

The question is, how much of a sacrifice is justified? Driving fatalities are vanishingly rare - if you take out drunk driving and no-seatbelt deaths (both of which should be considered forms of vehicular suicide), then you end up with about 6,700 per year. Out of billions of trips per year. How much sacrifice is…

It’s the nature of progress. Things were worse even then, so the progress that was being made felt like safety.

I mean, BWRs were never the right answer compared to PWRs. But I would suggest that any interface which allows you to melt down a plant is so poorly designed as to be considered trash.

Yes, those old Soviet reactors had so many critical design flaws. All of the old BWRs did, but the Soviet ones were particularly bad. 

Please, please yes.

What’s wrong with going 90 on a freeway? The rest of the world figured out how to do it safely decades ago. And so did we - the Pennsylvania Turnpike didn’t have a speed limit when it opened, and lots of roads built in the ‘40s were designed with 100 MPH curves. See old Route 66 in downstate Illinois, for example.