This is pretty universal in my experience any time you have inspectors/auditors intended to enforce a set of rules. The most common case is that they just miss some rule: they can be hard to properly map from what you're seeing to the rules reliably, so different auditors will miss different things (so you can get a sign off from one and then another highlights an actual contradiction).
The next level is that the rules are kind of vague or unclear and so different auditors will have different interpretation of it. You can try to fight it but ultimately the auditor is who needs to sign off on it. This is also why switching auditors can be a right pain.
Then you get interpretations which are flat out contradicted by the rules. Sometimes this is necessary to make the rules work (there's some blanket rule that's impractical to impossible to apply literally, so the auditors contort some interpretation that's more workable), sometimes it's just incompetence, and when it's wrong enough to matter sometimes it's easier to just go along with it than try to escalate the issue with the auditor.
You can also get situations where the auditor has their own pet rules, which aren't written down anywhere, but they will become much more adversarial if they are not followed (sometimes they'll outright tell you what they are, sometimes it's a guessing game).
Depends on whether an ERV/HRV or other fresh air intake system is involved, I guess. In a space like an airport with so many people, you do have to cycle in fresh air somehow, it can’t just be a sealed space.
Its reliably improves as the British engineering is reduced... These EV trucks are going to be running for 100 years. No crazy Chinese firmware, no bonkers Musk autonomy, charge them from the solar on your roof, enough torque to pull a semi trailer out of a ditch.
It's precisely because these EVs don't repackage android or attempt to remain internet connected that will allow them to keep working on the software side. Embedded firmware (for ISO/IEC 15118 comms with the CCS2 port) for charge controllers is about as sophisticated as it gets.
I've tried it, a dozen times, in two European countries with, on paper, strong data protection laws. Every single time, after anemic back-and-forth, the national data protection agency basically told me "they say it's fine and you opted in, nothing we can do".
> what happened to world fairs, and why don't we have more of these?
We do, just not every year. [0]
Expo 2000 in Hannover, Germany, was a very big deal. The tram/metro/bus system of this 500k pop city was significantly improved. Infrastructure was modernized.
At the exhibition you could visit very creative pavilions that tried to capture something like a national spirit (or whatever the national committee wanted to represent as such). Switzerland and Japan were my favourites. [1] The former fair grounds and some structures built specifically for Expo 2000 are still being used today for events [2].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_fair#World_Expos_2
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_2000#Pavilions and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_2000#Gallery
[2]: https://expowal-hannover.de/
As a Western European, I see the same untrustworthiness in Europe.
We just have our personal privacy security theater in the form of GDPR and a feeling of moral supremacy that's been drilled into our heads from primary school on.
GDPR isn’t theatre in many organisations. Yes large tech firms (mostly US) probably ignore or circumvent. But most businesses I’ve worked for have taken concrete steps to reduce the data they hold and consider how it’s being used asa direct consequence of gdpr.
Sounds interesting, could you elaborate?
reply