Also true of being able to go over 90 MPH, despite many sports/premium cars touting an ability to reach a top speed above 150 MPH.
Some cars come with "Donut Mode" or drift modes. Donuts and drifting are definitely not road legal actions. These, and many other capabilities of sports cars, are obviously for track use only. These Roadster gimmicks are no different.
Cars seem so full of gimmicky features these days. A friend's car yesterday stopped us when exiting because it thought we left behind belongings in the back seat - it was just an empty package. That was not something I would have ever thought a car would flag. It's not that fancy of a car (entry level SUV) but it is fairly new, it just kind of bothered me.
One reason I hope Slate does well - newer cars have too much useless tech across the board. At least with a sports car the gimmicks are part of the appeal. Entry level new cars should be simpler, modular, and cheaper. Just let me drive and stop trying to be so helpful.
The back seat thing is probably the things cars have been adding to try to combat those freak memory accidents when parents forgot to drop the baby off at daycare and left them in the car in the sun all day with disastrous consequences.
Good point, I don't have a kid and would have never thought of that as something that system was hedging against. I'm not sure it changes my mind overall (I think also this particular implementation was still rather clumsy) but it does at least make that feature far more defensible in theory.
I don't think this is true: drag increases with the square of velocity, so that's close to double the drag from 150 to 200, and I believe somewhere above 60/70 mph, aerodynamic drag starts to overtake road resistance as the main friction source, i.e. it takes significantly more horsepower to be able to do 200 than 150.
Kinda, but not really. In Germany you can do that on public roads. And there are many circuits you can do track days at that only require a street legal car and a helmet.
Meanwhile even the suction functionality of the roadster will probably be banned at most track days because it throws a bunch of rocks and dirt at cars behind you.
Tyres also throw stones and dirt at cars behind, sometimes with remarkable force. But you're right, road debris is a serious question here. I can only imagine that this is so obvious that it cannot have been overlooked.
Surely the intake will need to be minimally filtered, my guess is something similar to fly screen mesh (screen door material, for the yanks) or finer. Debris would then just fall to the ground when the fans aren’t running.
List of cars I know to go over 90MPH. Supposedly. 2000 Dodge Neon with 800 pounds of man in it and only 3 out of 4 cylinders functional. 2004 Toyota Camry with broken O2 sensors, and it loves it. Anything by VW. Pretty much anything parked in your local highschool.
Most modern cars can hit 90 MPH with ease, that's what modern aero and 145HP being "underpowered" means! Supposedly cars are electronically hard limited to 115mph and I have never been able to confirm that in practice
Of course, this implies that you might be able to own some of these features, with the actual crime being using them. Like that Beetle with a helicopter jet turbine.
It's an awesome performance, but I don't know why you'd want this in your actual day to day car and pay a premium for it, all power to you if you do but I wouldn't call not sharing that preference 'poo pooing the incredible tech'.
Both sides are acting in quite a restrained capacity, tbh, with the front lines being relatively contained.
I remember reading experiences of the war in Bosnia, and how barter was absolutely key in survival. Even the most basic skills and resources became invaluable. Think I remember the guy speaking about how being able to refill gas for lighters kept him fed.
Hell, even in Texas, the promising progressive currently leading in the polls for Senate (James Talarico)? A superPAC promoting his campaign just got $10M from Reid Hoffman. Don't think I have to connect the dots between him and AI.
If you look at establishment Democrats, that's like the biggest sustaining source of campaign contributions.
Republicans aren't better (they're worse), but the point is that there aren't 41 Senators who would block a bailout of tech after a crash.
> Starting in August 2027, they will be allowed to 'hold a student, keep them in place, or take them to another room' if the student disrupts the class.
Yeah. The UK for example already allows use of 'reasonable force' to prevent a pupil from committing a criminal offense, prevent personal injury or damage to property, and most ambiguously, to 'maintain good order and discipline in the classroom', which sounds a lot like this.
This headline implies misleadingly that teachers in Denmark are reintroducing the cane or something.
In reality though you can easily lose your job in the UK over stuff like this if a kid/parent complains so teachers are afraid to use any force at all.
What the law says on paper is one thing, who the school administration will
believe and back up is another
No need for a "culture clash", slapping is out of the question anyway. If a female slapped my child, I'd make sure she looses her job, no matter where she or I come from.
Even as much as a nudge can be escalated to safeguarding, which can lead to an investigation where people can say anything about you, which can lead you to getting sacked if they found a 'safeguarding breach', which can lead to a TRA panel (they get over a 1000 referrals per year), which can lead to a suspension and ends you up on the public government website with your full name (your life is ruined).
Notice none of the steps need your behaviour to amount to a legal assault. Just what your school and the Dfe thinks goes against "safeguarding" which is broad. God forbid if you are a man.
I was curious about the numbers. Apologies for the year mismatch. I can only report what I found. This year there are about 466000 teachers working in primary and secondary education in the UK. In 2024 there were 1684 complaints to the TRA about teachers. (No idea how many were to because of physical contact) of 1055 were dismissed. So around 600 upheld complaints. Or 0.3% of teachers. That doesn’t seem too bad to me.
The greater scandal is that the average time to clear each case was around 103 weeks.
>1000 referrals annually is a lot and can be damaging to ones wellbeing and lead to a dismissal even if it doesn't lead to a suspension. Most teachers are not men (only 14% in primary, 35% in secondary) and are almost certainly not doing what the above suggested is allowed.
It’s less than one per hundred teachers and that’s with the assumption that there’s never two complaints about a single teacher in a year. I guess we have different ideas of a lot, which is fair enough.
I have no direct experience of this being an engineer rather than a teacher. I have been subject to an HR complaint once in my career. At Cisco. I’m not sorry. I can easily believe that it’s a stressful and unpleasant experience, especially for those people, the great majority, who are exonerated.
I only consider it a lot because that's usually the final point of escalation after it goes through safeguarding or a formal investigation conducted by the school before it reaches the government. But it doesn't have to reach that point to hurt your career. I just know enough from teachers that I wouldn't try and practice what OP suggested.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting it, I'm sharing what the law says. FWIW, I am a qualified teacher and a man, if those things are important to the discussion.
What the law allows may still fall well below the professional standards expected of a teacher. In particular, a teacher who uses force to maintain good order and discipline is likely failing to create a safe environment, failing to manage behaviour effectively, failing to treat pupils with dignity, failing to safeguard children's wellbeing, amongst others.
I would fully expect a teacher who can't control their classroom without force to be investigated and to potentially lose their job pretty quickly. The point is that it's not illegal, provided the force is reasonable (another point of ambiguity).
Also, it's not 600 upheld complaints, it's 600 investigations resulting from referrals. After investigation, 244 hearings were held and 202 of those found serious misconduct, and 157 teachers were banned from teaching, most commonly for sexual misconduct or indecent images, not use of force.
466 000 is FTE for state-school teachers in England alone. Actual HC is 512 000, with another 75 000 FTE working in independent schools (couldn't find HC details), so 600 000 is a better estimate for the number of teachers under the jursidiction of the TRA - 202/600 000 is 0.03%, or one in every 3000 teachers (referrals is still around one in 350).
Obviously stuff handled before it reaches the TRA isn't in those stats, but mostly those cases are not career-ending.
… and I "experienced" that (until class 7) – a lot. Became hostel prefect starting in class 8, so teachers were kinda scared of me after that. There were precedents for that though.
It (the "beating" kind) hasn't stopped in my country. Even in the cities, some parents look back on it nostalgically, and some, who are bigger morons, want it practised.
Danes calling their approach "physical force" feels like a personal attack and restrospective gaslighting :D
From the draft law: "(Explicit provisions on the school's responsibility for care and access to physical intervention, including an extended legal basis for the use of force, etc.)"
So it uses the terms "physical intervention", and "use of force", although that's using Google Translate.
It is still physical force. If I grab and restrain you randomly in the street you're going to call it assault still. And this is good, we should carefully consider the different levels of physical force that are acceptable in different scenarios.
reply