Biden isn't going to say "yeah I'm thinking of dropping out", nor will his campaign, even if they're strongly considering it. It he does decide to step aside, it will be a sudden announcement with no forewarning.

I agree with your premise though. It isn't impossible. We just need to collect data and do polling for like a week to understand how much the debate hurt Biden, and if there's any good alternative options who have a better shot.

I think debates and townhalls are Biden's best bet right now. He needs to show that it was just a bad night for him.

And if it wasn't just a bad night, it'll spur action to find a viable replacement.

It happens! The important part is review and learning from the mistakes.

Oh definitely. I just think their primary influence was on the size of the margin, not the actual outcome of the election. And it still benefits them, since they can say it was a 17% margin instead of like 3-5%.

It's a 17% difference now. I'm honestly skeptical that AIPAC money is the big cause here. It seems like he had a lot of other issues that contributed to his loss. I was reading earlier that he didn't really communicate or interface with his constituents much, while Latimer was a much bigger community presence.

This is a trend I've noticed actually. A lot of people who do take morally correct positions like to let their positions speak for themselves and not do as much communication or outside engagement. They want to let their moral high ground do the talking. And while their positions are laudable, their core job is to represent their constituents. If they ignore that, a loss isn't surprising.

We all make mistakes. I once forgot to include gravity in a pressure drop calculation for a 100 ft vertical pipe as part of a steam drum system. I had to send an awkward email revising the design pressure I previously communicated out.

But hey, if we were perfect, we wouldn't need peer review.

I have a little bit of experience with limit switches, but that's really interesting. It certainly seems like an unusual system. I'm a lot more familiar with safety relays.

I've unfortunately been working on process control strategies for almost a year now on new and novel applications for my company, so I've been intimately familiar with this. If it isn't obvious, this isn't my favorite professional area of interest hahaha.

Designating fail open and fail closed valves is so intrinsic to what I've been doing that I can't imagine someone designing a car control system and not thinking about that at all.

It's basic safety for industrial plants to designate powered equipment as "fail open" or "fail closed" or on/off. It's shocking that this wasn't applied to Tesla cars.

We really need an industry that performs industrial grade HAZOPs on consumer products and publishes a report for everyone to see.

Might be the doors are fail shut if anything happens... But that seems like the worst design ever.

Come to think of it, it's basic design to designate features as fail closed/fail open on loss of power in an emergency, and you go with what's inherently safe. It appears Tesla did not consider basic safety design. To no one's surprise.

This seems like an excellent way for the governing party to lose big time in elections.

Putin has a history of false flag operations, so it isn't impossible.

Sorry, what the fuck. This is a complete failure on engineering controls and safety. A safety analysis on an industrial plant would find something like this to be a major safety vulnerability that needs several redundant safeguards.

Jesus fucking Christ.