u/intredasted

Feel free to backtrack all the way.

This study is not concerned with the subject matter of usefulness of modern seat belts in a rollover crash, and you're grossly mischaracterizing it by cherry-picking.

It is concerned with the "bunching phenomenon" that is "occasionally observed" when "some geometries" are used.

Furthermore, the sensors used in modern seatbelts (that didn't exist in 80's and weren't widely available in the 90's)are capable of keeping the seatbelts in the fixed position in a rollover crash, thus improving the safety of the passenger in such an event.

It is a fallacy on your part to postulate that it follows from the need to replace a seatbelt after a crash that a seatbelt is useless in subsequent impacts in a rollover crash, that are, by the very mechanics of a rollover crash, unlikely to require the elasticity a frontal crash would require.

Spamming papers is not the same as having science support your argument.

The subject matter isn't whether they need to be replaced after a crash, but whether they are useless in a rollover crash following the initial impact.

Surely you must be trolling. This is beyond pathetic.

I'm not attempting to refute anything.

I was saying the papers you cited are incapable of supporting the claim that

seat belts... only work once, for the initial impact.

which they almost certainly are (at least the ones I looked into), and at least one of the papers you linked later actually refutes this claim indirectly.

Maybe you should read them while you wait.

I read the abstracts of four of these and none of them seemed to be supporting the claim put forward.

What are you doing buddy?

Sure seems like you're spamming citations containing certain keywords.

The results of multiple decades of development in the field of automotive safety. I remember what kind of technology was available in early 90's and I know what kind of technology is available now.

What evidence lead you to the conclusion that a paper from 1984 is relevant to the contemporary debate on car safety features in 2022?

No, I believe that the papers you presented are very unlikely to support the claim regarding the usefulness of seatbelts presented above.

It has nothing to do with definitions and everything with the technology and materials used.

What if one car is heavier or faster than the other and the forces thus don't only cancel each other out, but one car "prevails" over the other?

Wouldn't we then have a situation in which the heavier/faster car would be able to dissipate some of its energy, while the lighter/slower car would be impacted more than if it hit a stationary wall?

I mean, car safety studies from 80's and 90's are absolutely bound to be obsolete by now.

As of 2018, 1.2 million people in the UK live in a food desert

Fair enough, but the rate of obesity among UK adults is about 30%.

Clearly there's much more to it.

The logic is that one is an extension of yourself and the other is not.

I'm not the guy who was essentially shaming you for it, but let's not kid ourselves here.

Because it was never about Moscow feeling threatened from the outside in the first place.

Guys, a downvote isn't supposed to be a "disagree" button.

Considering that the OP is asking for controversial UK-centered opinions, this is potentially the most relevant comment in the thread.

People you don't know do die every day, but unlike in this hypothetical, usually you don't have a way of saving them.

to be more conciliatory towards pro-Eu

She's just more chicken-shit in her rhetoric now. Instead of outright leaving the EU, she wants to tear it down from the inside, using considerable France sway. It may not seem like it to an average voter, but that's what establishing primacy of national law over EU law comes to.

Compared to that, Brexit was fair and honest.

Nah, since Clinton.

Republicans had the whole machine primed to bash the evil empire of USSR (not saying that it wasn't). But when the evil empire collapsed, they didn't dismantle the machine - they picked a new "evil empire", only this time it was was the Democratic party.

Enlighten me.

I lived in France back in the day and could tell that hating Hollande was the thing to do (apart from those few days after the terrorist attacks in Paris), but I never quite understood what the reason was.

There was absolute outrage when it was revealed that he had said something slightly condescending (but essentially true) about star footballers.

Other than that, it did seem absolutely arbitrary.

Their rich can't hold a candle to US rich though. It's a trade-off.

There's one thing that's not being mentioned: some of the most avid consumers of pornography are teenage boys and men in their early 20s.

On voit que la fertilité fecundité dans cet image.

La mortalité et le taux d'émmigration n'y sont pas reflétés.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-the-population-decline-in-russia-has-hit-its-highest-in-history-54327

I mean the way male deer compete for females is they smash their heads against each other.

So the instinct is there, maybe it's just getting triggered at the wrong time as a consequence of brain damage.

Me later tonight

Shake on it?

You can't compare things that aren't the same? That's news to me. One might even think the evaluation of things as "the same" or "not the same" is a result of comparison. Actually, scratch that "one might" so that it doesn't confuse you. What I really mean is you can compare two things that aren't the same. But my point wasn't actually in trying to compare how glans stimulation feels for circumcised and uncircumcised men.

The point of of my comment isn't the quantitative difference in perception (which, as you rightly point out, would be difficult if not impossible to get right). My point is the qualitative difference demonstrated in the mechanics of stimulation.

On the one hand, uncircumcised men have experience both with penile stimulation utilising foreskin, and with stimulation not utilising it.

On the other, circumcised men only have experience with the latter (and, based on your replies here, I suspect they don't even know the former is a thing).

The positions are thus not symmetrical. That is my point.

I think you stopped reading after the second sentence tops, and more likely the first tbh.