Rotundus.com

A lot of people tend to like cars, but to me they've pretty much always been something I tend to view as more of a ball-and-chain. I came across this article detailing something that would seem to make owning a car significantly less annoying:

Software is at the heart of what keeps Teslas running. These internet-connected cars are designed to self-diagnose their problems. The vehicles can also download software fixes or updates — even new features — much like an iPhone when Apple puts out a new version of iOS. When fixes happen over the air, there’s no need for a shop in the first place.

... It’s basically just a big battery. That means no spark plugs, no air filters, no fuel pumps, no timing belts. In short, Teslas don’t have any of the parts that force you to take your car in for “regularly scheduled maintenance” — services that can cost dearly at the dealer. But it’s hard to charge for an oil change when there’s no oil to be changed.

To be fair, Tesla isn’t doing away entirely with bringing your car in. The company recommends an inspection once a year or every 12,500 miles. Its service plans start at $600 per year* or less if you buy multiple years at once. The plans include replacement of standard parts like brake pads and windshield wipers. The company will monitor your car remotely and tell you when there are problems, such as faulty batteries. In theory, there are pitfalls in an arrangement where the company that makes your car is the only one that can fix it. But Tesla would seem to alleviate that concern with its flat-rate plans, rather than fee-for-service gouging for every fix.

I'm not entirely sure that I buy that Tesla will never try to make a profit from its service business as the CEO is now claiming, but on the other hand this sounds like a significant improvement over the current state of affairs. Of course for the moment it's still something like a $70,000 car though apparently they're aiming at producing a roughly $40k model in a few years. For less maintenance headaches I'd probably be willing to fork out an extra $10-20k.

Why do pilots have the ability to turn off the transponder in-flight?

Given the Malaysian jet disappearing and calls like this one in the New York Times to prevent pilots from shutting off transponders it seems worthwhile to consider why they can do this in the first place. Two reasons still seem valid: (1) The possibility of transponders sparking or otherwise causing electrical fires, and (2) malfunctioning transponders having in the past managed to mess up radar coverage, impacting not only the jet with the malfunctioning transponder but all others in the vicinity.

Whole Foods: America’s Temple of Pseudoscience

"if you want a sense of how weird, and how fraught, the relationship between science, politics, and commerce is in our modern world, then there’s really no better place to go. Because anti-science isn’t just a religious, conservative phenomenon—and the way in which it crosses cultural lines can tell us a lot about why places like the Creation Museum inspire so much rage, while places like Whole Foods don’t."

CDC warns that gonorrhea on verge of being untreatable

I wonder if there might perhaps be some way - lifestyle-related perhaps - to reduce the spread of STDs that didn't require oodles of antibiotics (which now seem to be losing the struggle against this particular type).

Report: Government spent millions on penis pumps, paid double retail price

This is the US Medicare system - interesting how they seem to have manage to get the opposite of a volume discount for what doesn't sound likely to be an medical necessity.

As presented in a 3:23 video:

One awkward bit about the Ukraine situation is that in 1994 the country gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee of territorial integrity (with Russia being a signatory to that treaty). What worries me is what that does for future nuclear weapons proliferation if countries decide they can't trust such treaties.

I found the following information on the level of public support for the idea that children should be taught to cook in a Health Canada report:

... almost all respondents believe that it was important to teach children to cook; 98.5% of women and 95.3% of men thought it fairly or very important to teach boys to cook and 99.2% of women and 97.6% of men were similarly in favour of teaching girls to cook.

The study cited as being the source of this information is British, though I doubt the results would be dissimilar in Canada. Interestingly that British study was conducted shortly before cooking was pulled from British school curricula.

That said, trying to teach cooking in a relatively multi-cultural classroom with different allergies and whatnot could be a major pain I'd imagine.