No, the level is fixed for the high and low beams. I guess the driver can adjust them with a screwdriver but not while driving.
I’m just mentioning that headlight automation was being done back in the 1960s with simple electronics. Just a photo cell and a lens. The driver can adjust sensitivity.
I think the answer is China (CO2 emissions). But the longer answer is that they are mainly making stuff for the US and the EU.
> While China emits over one-third of global CO2, it is also the world’s factory, producing more than one-third of global manufactured goods (IEA, 2024a; Norton, 2024) . Research indicates that China remains the world’s largest generator of embodied trade carbon emissions. The gap between emissions embodied in China’s exports and those in its imports widened from 0.7 GtCO2 in 1990 to 1.8 GtCO2 in 2019 (CGTN, 2024) . According to the Global Carbon Budget, China’s 2021 consumption-based CO2 emissions are about 10% (or 1.2 GtCO2) lower than the territorial emissions (Friedlingstein et al., 2025).
I didn't waste your time. I posed a question. Your options were to ignore it, answer it, or complain about it. You've decided to complain and thus have maximally wasted your own time.
The point was, perhaps instead of saying things that are absurd, one should look at the graphed data to draw conclusions. I didn't /want/ you to guess, I wanted you to just go look. Or probably just admit to what you almost certainly could have guessed or already know is true.
So you don’t know what country doubled their pollution in the last 10 years? Was that a genuine question?
> The point was, perhaps instead of saying things that are absurd, one should look at the graphed data to draw conclusions.
What graph? What are you even talking about?
> Or probably just admit to what you almost certainly could have guessed or already know is true.
As I already said I genuinely don’t know. I could find sources for any answer if I interpret the question appropriately. As you posed the question any answer could be correct. Is it China? The United States? A developing African nation? Who knows! You brought it up. It’s on you to answer.
To those of us with more than a passing interest these details matter a lot. I don’t have the energy or desire to go back to first principles on this with you.
You can criticize something and still select it as the best option. I do this daily with Apple. If you can’t find a flaw in a technical solution you probably aren’t looking close enough.
> But, if we stopped minting pennies because they cost too much (3.7 cents), it's hard to imagine we're going to keep producing nickels when they cost 13.8 cents to mint. Dimes are much cheaper than nickels (5.8 cents), and quarters aren't too bad relative to face value (14.7 cents).
Coins aren’t disposable. Why does it matter if the production cost is higher than the face value?
Look, the Mint has one job, to make money. If it's losing money, it doesn't make cents. :P
But, while coins are durable, the Mint has been making billions of pennies every year since the 1950s, and yet retailers have trouble sourcing enough pennies to make change. They do tend not to be recirculated, even if they're not disposable.
> Look, the Mint has one job, to make money. If it's losing money, it doesn't make cents. :P
I realize this is a joke but again, my objection is that this is the actual reason given.
> But, while coins are durable, the Mint has been making billions of pennies every year since the 1950s, and yet retailers have trouble sourcing enough pennies to make change. They do tend not to be recirculated, even if they're not disposable.
These are all better reasons than the one we were given.
> These are all better reasons than the one we were given.
Explaining that it costs 4c to make a 1c coin is a pretty clear and solid justification. People know that producing a physical unit of currency should cost considerably less than its face value, and if not, it's a huge problem.
Complaining that one news article, which is just reporting a current event, doesn't give you an in-depth background analysis and context, is absurd. If you care about a topic enough to want that level of in-depth, you can go look for it elsewhere.
> Why does it matter if the production cost is higher than the face value?
You can buy pennies or nickels in bulk, melt them down, and turn a tidy profit. That's literally a "money printing glitch"
Every penny or nickel that gets lost in the gutter, stored in a coin collection, used as a washer or shim, turned into jewelery, or sets around in jars unused, represents a financial loss to the Treasury.
It's called seigniorage and melt value. Also see Gresham's law (hoarding).
No, you can't. According to [1] the scrap value of a penny is $0.0084771. The cost of production is $0.037. The relevant question is if a penny creates more than $0.037 of economic value before it is lost or destroyed.
Okay, metal prices are low at the moment, but post-1982 pennies did have a melt value of approx 2c not long ago. And it shows nickels are still currently worth more than 5c.
