Automakers Want AM Radios Out of Cars. Congress Is About to Require Them
Automakers Want AM Radios Out of Cars. Congress Is About to Require Them
Same reason we force new cars to come with a LATCH system for car seats, even if you don’t have kids; we want safety features to ubiquitous, even in the resale market, and we don’t want car manufacturers charging consumers more for them. This legislation would basically make carmakers treat AM radio like a safety feature, so they can’t up-charge rural consumers who need it more. Also, this legislation doesn’t put the entire burden on the carmaker. It also requires the government to look for alternatives to AM radio that could serve the same function (although I doubt they’ll find a non-digital alternative with the range of AM):
The proposed legislation would also direct the Government Accountability Office to study whether “an alternative communication system” could replicate and have the same impact that AM radio has for transmitting emergency information. (Source)
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are pushing to keep AM radio in the nation’s cars. A bipartisan group in Congress has introduced the “AM for Every Vehicle Act.” It would require automakers to keep AM radio in new cars at no additional cost. Supporters cite public safety concerns and AM radio’s critical role in transmitting emergency alerts. The proposed legislation arrives as more and more automakers say goodbye to AM radio in newer car models. Critics of the bill say that mandating AM radio is unnecessary — pointing to the Integrated Public Alerts and Warning System, which can distribute safety warnings across AM, FM, internet-based and satellite radios, as well as over cellular networks.
This is an aside. Using the term “skews” the way you did is common and incorrect. Generally, it’d be best to avoid the word skew when referring to right leaning or left leaning political ideas.
Why? Because a “Right Skew” would mean the data clusters to the left. And vice versa.
Google it! I swear!
It’s a pet peeve of mine. Not when people say it, just that it’s wrong even though it sounds right.
Carry on.
The context they used it was the statistical term, though.
They aren’t describing something appearance. They’re describing the nature of the distribution.
They then are describing the visual aesthetic of the distribution. This is exactly my point. It stands.
Yes it was.
The word “skew” cannot apply to a population in any other sense than a statistical sense. It cant be stretched and malformed as the nonstatistical definition would suggest.