Anonymous ID: d0b07b Feb. 17, 2024, 9:59 a.m. No.20429858   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>20429780

the irony of her being concerned about tyranny in a foreign nation that she has merely heard about, and has no way to prove, and address a person who is facing tyranny in our own country, which she is banking on to take him out of the race so that what happens to Novalny would happen to Donald Trump, and then she thinks she would be the nominee.

Anonymous ID: d0b07b Feb. 17, 2024, 10:07 a.m. No.20429909   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>20429882

what did they say? a dollar of plastic for each one would have saved hundreds of lives?

 

"Cost–benefit analysis, the Pinto Memo

 

In 1973, Ford's Environmental and Safety Engineering division developed a cost–benefit analysis entitled Fatalities Associated with Crash Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires for submission to the NHTSA in support of Ford's objection to proposed stronger fuel system regulation.[81] The document has become known as the Grush/Saunby Report, named for its authors,[62] and as the "Pinto Memo".[82] Cost-benefit analysis was one tool used in the evaluation of safety design decisions accepted by the industry and the NHTSA.[83] The analysis compared the cost of repairs to the societal costs for injuries and deaths related to fires in cases of vehicle rollovers for all cars sold in the US by all manufacturers. The values assigned to serious burn injuries and loss of life were based on values calculated by NHTSA in 1972.[84] In the memo Ford estimated the cost of fuel system modifications to reduce fire risks in rollover events to be $11 per car across 12.5 million cars and light trucks (all manufacturers), for a total of $137 million. The design changes were estimated to save 180 burn deaths and 180 serious injuries per year, a benefit to society of $49.5 million.

 

In August 1977, having been provided with a copy of the memo by Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. plaintiffs before trial,[85][86] Mark Dowie's investigative article "Pinto Madness", published in Mother Jones magazine, emphasized the emotional aspects of the Grush/Saunby Report and implied Ford was callously trading lives for profits.[87] The Mother Jones article also erroneously claimed that somewhere between 500 and 900 persons had been killed in fires attributed to the Pinto's unique design features.[88]

 

The public understanding of the cost-benefit analysis has contributed to the mythology of the Ford Pinto case. Time magazine said the memo was one of the automotive industry's "most notorious paper trails".[52] A common misconception is that the document considered Ford's tort liability costs rather than the generalized cost to society and applied to the annual sales of all passenger cars, not just Ford vehicles. The general misunderstanding of the document, as presented by Mother Jones, gave it an operational significance it never had.[89][90]

"

 

from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

Anonymous ID: d0b07b Feb. 17, 2024, 10:09 a.m. No.20429922   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>20429915

if your country and afford to give away . . .

and the son of the leader is living in a 5000 dollar a month condo in your country

dodging his countries draft . . .