Readit Newshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GAX-447.jpg#globalus...
Edit: actually it doesn't appear on some of the pages cited there.
To complete the loop on the latter: Tesla's 2012 handle patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US9103143B2/en
> Conventional door handle designs typically have less than desirable aerodynamics due to protrusion of the exterior door handle from the surface of the door and the recessed area over which it spans. As the vehicle moves, these conventional door handles interrupt the smooth surface of the door and thereby increase the overall drag of the vehicle. Depending on the size, depth, and overall shape of the recessed area, for example, the corresponding area under the door handle further contributes to reduced aerodynamics of the vehicle. Designers have not focused on improving aerodynamics in this area as the exterior door handle seems relatively small and inconsequential.
> 104 in the retracted position provides both a smooth appearance and advantageous aerodynamic qualities when the vehicle is in motion
I'm starting to wonder if an interview with David Wheeler (what a name for a car patent) et al would even be believed here at this point.
Maybe we should start by identifying metrics that enable us to measure the impact that a parent is having on their child's education?
To me, accountability requires an added component of being held answerable for said impact. E.g. "John was held accountable for the damage to the car" would mean John had to answer for the damage, not just "the damage John had was measured" or "John's actions were found to cause the damage". This answerability to the impact is the only part of accountability which I think we can't realistically do with parents as we are able to for students or educators.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
What can we do to hold the parents accountable?
Even taking a non-cynical look at certain parents' level of interest/ability/care/etc, we go as far as taking students and teachers out of the rest of the workforce for the express purpose of being able to assign them accountability for education instead. There just aren't levers like that available on the parental side to try to trigger meaningful actions with, nor is there anything close to consensus on how those might be put into place to begin the debate on what parents should be made accountable for with them.
The best chance I've seen to increase the amount of involvement from parents in their child's education is to try to have enhanced their own childhood education well enough to see why it's so important they be actively involved.
TorrentFreak's analysis here also isn't very good. This isn't a contentious matter where we're seeing two equally well-argued sides. There is no open question here or a novel defense strategy. The DMCA has statutory damages around the anticircumvention parts, even if the circumvention is in regards to enabling use that is not otherwise illegal. That's what makes it insidious. This guy is going to lose if he did use a ripping tool instead of a screen recorder and this is the defense they stick with and the outcome of the case is decided on its merits.
> As noted above, the Court does not consider and weigh defendants’ opposing evidence when addressing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
I.e. the claim towards the end in circumvention was not dismissed because the counter argument/counter evidence itself was found to be valid/invalid yet (that being there is no evidence such download protection circumvention tools were used). Just that counter evidence is not a reason to dismiss at this stage. That's the part I'm interested in seeing the ultimate ruling on, as it does seem reasonable to say it doesn't matter if it would be against the DMCA if there's no evidence circumvention is actually how the video was actually grabbed.
Flush handles exist as brand differentiators. They're a "futuristic" feel-good feature that consumers want, like engine noise, tablets, and colorful dashboards.
https://media.landrover.com/new-range-rover-sport-press-kit-...
https://usa.infinitinews.com/en-US/releases/2025-qx80-press-...
Those two things probably cover 99% of the usage by volume.
Even the aero study done by range rover doesn't claim they're a meaningful improvement. It claims the handles came from the product design vision first.
> Depending on the size, depth, and overall shape of the recessed area, for example, the corresponding area under the door handle further contributes to reduced aerodynamics of the vehicle. Designers have not focused on improving aerodynamics in this area as the exterior door handle seems relatively small and inconsequential.
Aerodynamics is complicated. You should measure the actual impact rather than guess. "just make it smooth" is a rule of thumb, not a law. If we're following rules of thumb, my copy of Theory and Applications of Aerodynamics for Ground Vehicles specifically says this on the subject:
This is after the section where it recommends flush, airplane style handles as optimal, because again the original claim is that the magnitude of the improvement is negligible.I'm not sure how this differs from when I had previously started "Very peculiarly, everyone seems to actually agree the handles are a little more aerodynamic. It's the possibility the manufacturer's teams (except marketing, apparently) could ever have also considered this as one of several benefits when choosing the design which is at such levels of doubt".
Regardless, I continue to find myself in complete agreement w.r.t. this.
> Even the aero study done by range rover doesn't claim they're a meaningful improvement. It claims the handles came from the product design vision first.
My argument remains flush handles in the automotive industry are about more than just one thing alone (more specifically, that drag is indeed also one of those things). Hence I find myself rather lost as to how lack of being the first reason for Range Rover should strike drag as having already been shown as one of their other listed reasons. As far as I can conceive, being about more than one thing alone inherently necessitates some of those reasons are not always to be given as a first reason. Similarly, I don't follow why only the first reason might be held as non-negligible.
> Aerodynamics is complicated. You should measure the actual impact rather than guess. "just make it smooth" is a rule of thumb, not a law.
Other engineers in the field are well aware aerodynamics is a fickle beast and they are not commonly guessing their vehicle aerodynamics by rule of thumb, as you already seem to be very familiar with based on mentioning the Range Rover aero study. Of course, I don't like to leave such a claim uncited or unsourced (regardless how familiar it seems to all already) so here is an SAE paper backing claims Tesla did indeed extensively test the aerodynamics of every external component (for the same vehicle the patent is referring to) rather than guess the impact of exterior elements by rule of thumb https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Palin/publicatio...:
"Aerodynamic optimization is a major contributor to the overall efficiency of an electric vehicle and the close integration of the Design and Engineering groups at Tesla Motors was specifically arranged to process design iterations quickly and enable the fully informed development of the exterior surfaces at a very rapid pace... Following aerodynamic optimization at the overall shape level, focus switched to optimization of production parts, and every external component of the Model S has been examined in great detail searching for aerodynamic performance, since areas that may seem insignificant in isolation can rapidly accumulate to have a substantial impact on the whole."
> If we're following rules of thumb, my copy of Theory and Applications of Aerodynamics for Ground Vehicles specifically says this on the subject...
We're not just following rule of thumb, but everything in the comments prior still appears to align with this passage anyways. One indeed does not need to make the door handle optimally flush to make a design choice which is aerodynamically beneficial. Clearly, however, the additional possible efficiency is not completely negligible (or an ignored factor) in flush door handle design consideration by many manufacturers in order to make exclusive way for reasons other than drag. One does not even need to conclude this from any of the evidence, to repeat the relevant portion of the prior citation instead:
"Following aerodynamic optimization at the overall shape level, focus switched to optimization of production parts, and every external component of the Model S has been examined in great detail searching for aerodynamic performance, since areas that may seem insignificant in isolation can rapidly accumulate to have a substantial impact on the whole."
.
Again, I'm not trying to argue drag is the only reason (or even that it's the primary reason). Just that claims the additional drag is negligible or saying that flush handles aren't about drag does not redefine what the auto makers themselves say about drag being a reason.