The manufacturer has rated this relay for nominal motor (ie inductive) loads of 0.5 A, with peak surge of 2.5 A, at 120 VAC. The flyback diode should be sufficient, since the switching rate would not be very high to control a relay. The terminal block supports a max wire diameter of 1.5mm2 (~16 AWG) which would be more than plenty for a 0.5 A load.

If you're actually running >60 VAC through the relay, then it's good practice to add a slot that prevents creepage currents between the low-voltage DC section and the higher-voltage power section.

For smaller applications, this seems reasonable enough, at least to me.

I don't see any inherent contention between the two examples you've given. Someone that is justice minded is looking for two things: 1) a system that punishes those who commit wrongs, and 2) a system that only punishes those that meet the criminal criteria.

It is a colorable argument that health insurance executives ought to have culpability for their decisions, yet the legal system allows them to skate. It is also a colorable argument that some/many/most prisoners sentenced to death in California were wrongfully convicted, or their trial/punishment was swayed by improper bias (ie racism), and thus such an imperfect system ought to not result in irreversible error (ie execution of someone who didn't meet the criteria).

So killing is not okay except when its internet-approved vigilantism?

Please do not reduce nuance into nullity. There are vanishingly few people that will assert that killing (even self defense) should always be prohibited; this is a strawman. And "internet vigilantism" is more than just words on a screen, but actions undertaken that happen to be online. Take, for example, the good work of DDoSecrets, which is unquestionably a form of vigilantism, yet daylight is the best antiseptic for corruption. The world is not black and white; rather, it is complicated.

I think it would help us if you included the part designators for components on the board, and then what your design criteria was. After all, this might be fine for 1A at 5vdc but fall apart for 10A at 67vac.

!castiron@lemmy.world would love this

I would point to construction cranes as a case study in favor of mechs. At its core, a crane lifts loads heavier than humans or even teams of humans can manage. But as they are, they're kinda slow and are finicky, requiring great care and slow operation.

If you had a mech, moving the raw materials up would be no big deal. Although one could argue that outfitting a crane operator with equivalent dexterous control of a crane would enable similar improvements, but in a smaller, stationary footprint.

For this analysis to make sense, we need to deconstruct "auto insurance" into its various parts, because this will matter. Note that some jurisdictions have no insurance requirements (eg New Hampshire) and others have a thing that splits bodily injury across all parties, meaning that the liability component is harder to apportion. The point is that the analysis will vary slightly based on where you are.

Typical auto insurance can include: third-party liability (the component mandated by most US States), collision, comprehensive, medical, and uninsured/underinsured motorist. These are all insurances that you buy, but they might not necessarily pay out to you.

Third-party liability covers damage or injuries that you cause to some other party, payable to that other party on your behalf. Crashing into a lamp post, a pedestrian, or an occupied car all will be paid from the third-party liability coverage limits. A state like California mandates a minimum coverage, but it's not been updated for inflation and stands at a paltry $30,000 per person injured and $15,000 for damaged property.

Collision insurance covers your automobile as it is being driven. So if you wrap your car around a telephone pole, this insurance pays to replace your car for you. Generally, this insurance follows the car, so if you lend the car to a friend and they crash it, the policy will still pay out so you can replace your wrecked car.

Comprehensive insurance is similar to collision, in that it covers your car. But notably, it covers the car when not in operation. So if a tree falls on the parked car, or someone keys your car, then comprehensive insurance will pay out. A rule of thumb is that collision applies if someone is in the driver's seat, and if not, then comprehensive would apply. Note that some states (eg California) explicitly exclude collision/comprehensive coverage for instances of hit-and-run where the assailant remains unidentified; this is a public policy choice, so that insurance prices don't skyrocket if anyone can claim that their mailbox-sized dent was due to a hit-and-run.

Medical insurance covers you and your passengers in the event of a collision for any reason. If you crash into a tree and it injures a passenger, your medical insurance pays out for their injuries. If a big rig pushes your car off the highway, then both your medical or their third-party liability can pay for your injuries. The oddity is that if you have health insurance, then auto medical insurance only pays for your deductible. That is, health insurance pays first, and anything that still remains can be paid by someone else's third-party liability (if available) or your own auto medical insurance. For this reason, some people omit auto medical if they already have health insurance, and can manage their deductible.

Finally, UM/UIM is a policy that, oddly, covers other people but pays to you. Imagine being struck as a pedestrian by a teenager riding a e-moto without a license or insurance. If you were struck by a motorist, their third-party insurance would have paid out. But here is an underage motorcyclist that doesn't have any insurance at all, despite a legal requirement to have insurance. To prevent you from being SOL, your UM/UIM stands in for their lack of third-party insurance, meaning it will pay you for all your injuries and damages.

With all that background, let's return to the titular question. Supposing a ludicrously expensive car is now on the road, and the owner has purchased every policy above for themselves, there really shouldn't be an impact to other people's insurance rates.

Third-party liability is based on one's propensity to incur damage or injury to other people. The motorist driving in a sea of econoboxes is not somehow more disposed to causing a collision if they're instead driving in a sea of expensive cars. The amount of damage might go up, but third-party liability is always written with a max coverage limit anyway.

For collision and comprehensive, these are based on the value of your car, not other people's. So it really shouldn't go up, at least directly. Of course, there are second-order effects, such as if billion-dollar cars cause mechanics to move away from servicing normie cars and towards servicing only these luxury cars, causing reduce supply of mechanics and thus inflation of the cost to repair all cars. That would indeed increase the payout for collision and comprehensive insurance, which would increase everyone's rates.

Medical insurance is also fairly unchanged, because it either covers your bodily injuries (which could be high but not infinity) or is capped by your health insruance's deductible (which post-ACA is indeed limited). A billion-dollar car causes injury under the same physics as a normally-priced Honda Civic. It's not like the billion-dollar car weighs 30,000 kg, right?

And finally, UM/UIM is about uninsured motorists or motorists with not enough insurance. Rich people have deep pockets to cover any injuries or damages which their third-party insurance doesn't cover. So all else equal, ludicrously expensive cars on the road doesn't move the needle for other people here.

Overall, auto insurance tends to internalize the individual costs of automobile risks, so that there is no direct spillover onto other parties. But even while the auto insurance market is efficient, the market of new and used car parts is not. The market of healthcare in the USA is not. The market of feasible alternatives to driving is not. While a billion-dollar car doesn't disrupt this careful balance within auto insurance, so many other things will.

The absolute best calendar I ever had was the free one from the welding supply company AirGas. Truly stunning photography of hot welding action. And the calendar itself was chock full of useful info like week numbers, holidays in the USA, Canada, and beyond. And overall, it was a large format that's suitable for marking up and handwriting entries.

I'm only sorry that I wasn't able to get the 2026 version due to business sending me away during January.

It's also a chance for cops to look in the glove box, where most people keep their registration. Or to smoke out people who stole a car and thus don't know precisely where the registration is.

But those are ancillary reasons for cops asking about registration. I figured OP only wanted the bona fide, entirely-defensible reasons.

In California, proof of payment for a vehicle registration renewal is allowed as proof of registration, specifically to cover the period after the payment is sent but before the DMV has issued the registration and corresponding sticker. So even if the DMV hasn't received the payment in the mail, if a motorist can show some sort of proof (eg a bill pay transaction on their phone), that is acceptable.

Also, the DMV here will issue one-day registrations, in order to allow a vehicle to be driven from one storage location to another. If a motorist has a proper one-day registration, that won't necessarily show up on the police computer, but is nevertheless legit.

Ah, I see. American English seems to use trail for almost any path that isn't meant for vehicular traffic. Note that some historic routes through the West were inconsistently named in the 1800s, so the Oregon Trail was indeed through unpaved wilderness, but the Mormon Road was also unimproved.

My comment was about bodily safety. In terms of trail utilization, I agree that unduly preventing the use of the trail is rude. But there's huge daylight between things that are rude and things that are liable to injure people.

Pedestrians should not deny the trail to bicyclists that can safely pass. Even if there are lots of cyclists, at least a column must be kept available for pedestrians.

Ultimately, if such a trail is so heavily congested -- and there is one such trail near me -- then the municipality bears the responsibility to accommodate users. If this means closing nearby streets to open up more recreational walking facilities elsewhere to shift the demand away from the trail, that's fine. If that means removing auto lanes on parallel roads to shift bicycle commuters off the trail, that works too. I'm all-in on reconfiguring taxpayer-owned spaces to serve people, rather than as car sewers or car storage.

I did say "pavement markings or signs", and this was meant to cover both types: here in California, a "trail" can refer to anything from a minimally-improved dirt route through the forest no wider than a person, to an asphalt-paved multi-use facility with smaller versions of the familiar traffic control signs.

In the context of OP's question, I didn't specifically discuss narrow, single-track trails because there's no possibility of a bicyclist squeezing past a pedestrian without it being a very obvious negotiation of space.

But there are plenty of regional trails which reuse the alignment of an old fire road or railroad. So the prospect of riding a bicycle on dirt in a 3-meter wide dirt corridor is not unheard of. So to come across a pedestrian is also not abnormal. If the weather is good, all walks [no pun intended] of life will make their way to enjoy the outdoors here.

Regional recreation areas will post their trail rules at the trailhead, and periodically along the trails. Some rules are obvious, like not littering. Others are not: horses sometimes get priority over both cyclists and pedestrians, because in areas with lots of horse riding, the horses could get spooked and bolt.