I'm not saying the GP is correct (I'd rather see a study than "something a cartoon said"), but there are "numerous counter-examples" to everything. Pack-a-day smokers who lived to 110, high-functional alcoholics, people who lived long lives around lead, mercury and asbestos. That doesn't mean you don't want to encourage people to not try to beat the odds.
Tobacco smoking, alcohol abuse and exposure to lead, mercury and asbestos have been shown to have strong negative health effects by extensive studies with a lot of statistical power and grounded in theory.
This is not the case for cannabis use. The public perception of cannabis as having horrible negative health consequences comes from state propaganda, not science. Look it up yourself. But look for scientific articles, not newspaper articles.
So before you use that classical argument, you have to actually have some data that provides evidence for the substance under question being generally harmful.
Carl Sagan (one of the counter-examples) used to confront his scientist friends with this, and they were surprised to find that there is indeed very little scientific support for this view. For a while, the strongest result was that cannabis could help trigger early schizophrenia, but even this research is on shaky grounds (turns out that the population under study was highly biased).
> There is a high barrier to research about pot and other drugs such as LSD, for obvious reason. This means that while you have a gigantic corpus of data about alcohol usage, for instance, you have next to nothing to work with on pot.
Prohibition prevents scientific research, but it is not true that there isn't a lot of indirect data. One of them is cause of death at emergency rooms. While alcohol produces a large number of deaths daily, cannabis produced zero so far (in the history of modern medicine).
> Just because you don't have studies showing pot is harmful it doesn't mean pot isn't harmful. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Sure, but this applies to everything. Maybe having brown curtains in your living room increases your chances of suffering from depression. Let's make brown curtains illegal until we know more?
There is a high barrier to research about pot and other drugs such as LSD, for obvious reason. This means that while you have a gigantic corpus of data about alcohol usage, for instance, you have next to nothing to work with on pot.
Just because you don't have studies showing pot is harmful it doesn't mean pot isn't harmful. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This test seems very poor. They didn't measure the NOx emissions so we don't know if it really entered "cheater mode". According to a comment there, it was probably trying to compensate for what it detected as the rear wheels spinning and they need to turn off DSP. It doesn't sound like they really knew what they were doing so I'm not sure I trust it.
Yeah, also a power run on a dyno is nothing like the sustained cruising-speed tests carried out for emissions tests. I'm not sure that during a power run the car would realize it is being tested. At least, it wouldn't if I was the one implementing the cheat-mode based on my knowledge of emissions testing procedures.
All of this testing can be seen as very poor, however, I would argue that we are running the wrong tests. Let me explain...
Imagine you were developing a car. As part of the project you would need to test, test, test and test the drivetrain and the engine. For your test data to be relevant you would want a controlled environment, e.g. car on perfectly flat road with no pot holes, turns or aerodynamic consideration. You could then adjust the variables and check the results - power, torque, emissions, noise level, oil use, fuel use, temperatures and so on.
In this development mode the test rig works pretty good. Figures can be produced that are important for the engine/drivetrain development. Variables can be changed and results measured. The figures - defeat device aside - are actually true with the normal margins for statistical measurement (not every engine will be 100% exactly the same even if it came off the same production batch).
The problem - defeat device aside - is when regulatory bodies use this data for what they need to know, i.e. real world performance. They accept data that they know is not real world and accept it as 'fact'.
If we look at our own testing for building apps, websites and such like we take a modular approach, testing our dev boxes with some type of 'seige' that does not factor in real world internet connectivity and bandwidth, not to mention how customers might use our products in the wild. We can even prove to our clients that their site isn't slow, sharing our metrics with them. Yet, in the real world things don't quite attain those metrics. Luckily nobody gets harmed if our 'squirrel picture app for cats' app falls short.
So, it is the procedures that are wrong and our standards bodies that are doing it wrong (by blindly accepting manufacturers' test data). We are lucky that VW have been cheating as we now are having the conversation about the testing methodology.
For your test data to be relevant you would want a controlled environment, e.g. car on perfectly flat road with no pot holes, turns or aerodynamic consideration. You could then adjust the variables and check the results - power, torque, emissions, noise level, oil use, fuel use, temperatures and so on.
That's not how cars are developed. There is some of this for sure, but even "static" dyno tests involve varied workloads to simulate an urban environment. The European Driving Cycle is a fairly basic example of this.
Same here. I quickly switched to FTP once my school got PC's with shared internet access. Anything that could fit on a floppy could reasonably quickly be FTP'ed up to the 30 MB I got from my ISP even on 56k.
Actually, tusks are continually growing, like our hair and nails. I've read proposals to farm a "sustainable" amount of tusk (Google says they grow 15 cm per year). The Chinese market isn't looking for huge tusks for display but rather a powder to put in traditional remedies.
7% remaining capacity after 2 years seems insane to me. I replaced my 2012 MacBook Pro battery this year as it passed 1000 cycles (I'm bad at plugging in and end up charge cycling daily) and even that battery was still above 70% capacity...