Cars are not the only way to move people around. They are, however, the worst way to move people around. Take a bus and/or train, and you’ll never have to worry about parking again.
In response, more and more of our streets can be reclaimed for pedestrians spaces, adding walking/biking paths, adding greenery, adding outdoor patios, etc, instead of it all just going to ever increasingly large and crowded parking spaces and One More Lane™
At least according to the article, there seems to be some evidence that shorter wavelength UV can’t penetrate deep enough to cause those issues. It gets absorbed by the outer dead skin layer and liquid layer around your eyes.
From what they’re saying, it sounds like the biggest issue now is that UV light creates ozone and smog, which are obviously toxic. And that doesn’t seem to have an obvious solution, in the article they’re basically discussing how much smog is an acceptable trade off
From a physics perspective, yes it does. Not much, but yes it does do something.
In order for a crumple zone to work, the material must be at least slightly softer than the rest of the structure. When you have a collision, both the strong structure and the relatively weak crumple zones will flex, but the crumple zones will flex more. In a big collision, like with another car, they might flex so much they have permanent damage (the crumple), but even with a pedestrian they will flex a little. The more they flex, the more it cushions the impact for both the pedestrian and the occupants of the car.
As I said, the amount of cushion for the two parties is massively skewed in favor of the car, and crumple zones alone are not anywhere near enough to make cars safe for pedestrians. But objectively, yes they do slightly cushion the impact for a pedestrian, and in the perfect edge case collision it might mean the difference between life and death.
To an extent it’s both. I mean intent-wise it’s all about the occupants of the car, but as a side effect it also slightly reduces the impact on the pedestrian. The way I would think about it is that crumple zones on their own aren’t nearly enough to protect pedestrians, but removing them would be going completely in the wrong direction
Akthually, Betamax and betacam were completely unrelated standards. Betamax was the failed vhs competitor, with good quality but an unusably short recording length, and betacam was the unrelated standard that enjoyed a long and successful run in the professional world.
Technology connections has a few videos on the subject, but this one is probably the most relevant: https://youtu.be/hGVVAQVdEOs
According to that article, this only covers donations to other organizations who then distribute the donated food. It doesn’t cover anyone directly donating food to individuals.
So for a restaurant, they would need to donate food to a food bank or something, and that would mean food that isn’t immediately going bad. And if that’s the case they’re probably just going to keep it and try to use it later. If they want to donate the leftover food at the end of the day they can’t use anymore, there probably isn’t any time left other than to just give it to some homeless people outside the restaurant, which this act doesn’t protect against.
Which then just raises the question for me, why isn’t this also protected against? The act already states that the food has to be seemingly good condition, so you can’t just serve mold and say it was a gift. What’s the harm in feeding homeless people?