Although you are correct, this destroys the engine.

A good, efficient fusion engine just needs to point the exhaust end towards the enemy and the hyper-accelerated particles will punch a hole through the target for you. And then you point at the next target, etc. etc.

Also, it's a butchered quote from Larry Niven's Known Space books, referred to as the "Kzinti Lesson" - because the Kzinti thought humanity was unarmed and helpless until they discovered that humans are really good at improvising weapons.

Sigh. Yet another article assuming Mangione's guilt. Ben Burgis didn't even bother to say 'allegedly' anywhere.

Technically yes, I could, but I originally wanted to slap together a dumb meme about newbies to 196 getting trapped by The Rule. When I couldn't upload the image I gave up and made this post.

......thanks, I think....

The usefulness of a fusion engine as a weapon is directly correlated to its efficiency.

Even consoles these days require you to install files onto the machine before it'll play...

They're called Subaru Outbacks now.

Agreed. I'm not likely to say it to their face... but here, I'm preaching to the choir and I can be a bit salty about it.

Part of this is likely to be because with how stupidly car-focused the infrastructure is, revoking someone's license to drive is essentially revoking someone's right to autonomy.

Cars shouldn’t jump up and down due to road quality.

I live in a hilly area. Any time someone with projector headlights is on even a slight downward curve that I'm facing, it's the equivalent of brights in my eyes. Even with adaptive headlights, cresting a ridge would still blast anyone on the other side for the short amount of time it takes for your car to realize there's someone there.

For point 3... You're right, and you're wrong. Light from point sources instead of diffuse sources is worse for your retina. The light gets focused by your eye's lenses onto a much smaller area, which can potentially damage the sensitive photoreceptor cells. Ideally, there would be regulations that limit a headlight's candles per mm^2 rather than just overall candles. Astigmatism makes it so the light glares across half your vision, which makes it worse for seeing other things on the road besides the headlight glare, but conversely makes it better for not murdering your retina because the light is spread across a wider area.

The problem is that incandescent lights are 1) warmer in tone, which is less harsh for the same candle ratings, 2) have a more gradual boundary than LED projector-style headlights, which means you aren't suddenly blinded when the car coming towards you goes over a minor bump, and 3) aren't a point light-source with the reflector design they have unlike LEDs, and thus are less painful. NONE of these issues are dealt with in a vast majority of new cars (adaptive-angle headlamps would do a lot to help, but would only fix one of the three issues - and only when the camera can actually figure out when they should be lowering the angle, which is far from foolproof).

If I could easily replace the LED headlamp in my new car with an incandescent lamp, I would - because I could still see decently with my old car's headlights, and I wasn't at risk of blinding everyone in the oncoming lane next to me.

Oh, it's completely the fault of the voters. It's also the fault of the DNC's messaging. The crappy economy (job markets and inflation/unchecked price gouging) meant that the uninformed were just voting for "Not the Party that's Currently In Power" because the cost of groceries and rent was outstripping their paychecks, and the messaging coming from the DNC was completely tangential to that.

Regular everyday Joes don't follow politics. Just because we do doesn't make us representative of the general population. That sort of thinking is what made Trump's victory a surprise - both times.