In the US, there is the “85th percentile rule” that says the speed limit can’t be lower than the speed 85% of the traffic travels on that road. It’s not always followed, but is a factor I’ve heard cited in speed limit discussions several places I’ve lived, mostly as an argument against traffic calming measures for pedestrian safety. But to my understanding, the law implies that if enough people decide not to follow the speed limit, it could theoretically be deemed legally too low and would need to be increased.

Figuring out ways to look understaffed so they can get more officers…around that time their call volume “doubled” over a year because they changed how they tracked calls. (Accounting for that, it was roughly the same.) But they used that to ask for another officer…and I assume they probably even need another one if we want them to do speed enforcement.

Figuring out ways to look understaffed so they can get more officers…around that time their call volume “doubled” over a year because they changed how they tracked calls. (Accounting for that, it was roughly the same.) But they used that to ask for another officer…and I assume they probably even need another one if we want them to do speed enforcement.

Yeah, I live in small-town US where many residents have complained about speeding in areas with heavy pedestrian use. In response, the local PD was quoted on the front page of the paper saying they don’t have time to enforce speed limits. A few years later and they were again on the front page saying that they don’t have time or equipment to enforce parking regulations. So here they’re somewhere between suggestion and completely ignored, but the next town over is filled with speed cameras and highway patrol sitting in wait to meet their quota…both towns on the same road.

And in optics, the “real” portion of a material’s refractive index represents scattered light and the “imaginary” part represents absorbed light.

For every person who has heard about it, there are many more who have not. It’s important to have these conversations so that we as a society can make decisions about what we value; only when a critical mass of individuals have awareness can we work together toward common goals.

There are numerous ways cancelling shows and removing them from the platform saves streaming services money, including not having to pay residuals and the ability to write off production costs as a loss on taxes. And, like others have pointed out, streaming services are historically driven by subscription fees instead of ads, and many viewers tend to binge watch shows rather than watch nightly throughout a full season. So all combined, the profit motive tends to push services toward many new short series suitable for binge watching that will keep people subscribed, but that can be quickly cut and taken as a loss.

This Marketplace article provides some other reasons, too.

Why, as an American, do I have to navigate an internet full of pop ups designed to make sites GDPR compliant?

In academia, promotion, tenure, funding, and pretty much everything someone needs to keep their job is tied to publishing in peer-reviewed journals. If I self publish I won’t keep my job. If a university ran a website for publishing, they would have to reimplement the peer review process, and often there may be ~a dozen people worldwide qualified to review a particular paper so it’s not just that others from within the university could review work. If a university is implementing all that, they have basically become a publisher and likely have costs they’ll want to try and recoup and could foreseeably implement a fee to publish.

Don’t get me wrong - the journals have a predatory and exclusive model that should be dismantled. But until we fix promotion, tenure, and funding pathways in academia that have enabled the publishers to become what they are there will always be these problems – any other system that pops up will not get widely used because academics will be disincentivized from using it (as discussed in some other comments here).