Pulling fuses is a pretty reliable way to find the relevant fuse in the first place. If the battery doesn't run down while a particular group of fuses is pulled, the one you want to pull is in that group. Start with half the fuses, then narrow down.
You might have to reprogram your radio channels...
I can recommend searching for "South Main Auto parasitic draw" on YouTube. The guy is a genius at electrical troubleshooting.
His strategy isn't to pull fuses, it's to set the car sit for at least 30 minutes or so (with key off) and then check each fuse with a multimeter to see which has current on it, and then check everything on that circuit. Arm yourself with schematics and wiring diagrams, otherwise it'll end up being something of a wild goose chase.
(The idea being if you start pulling fuses, you can "reset" various computers in the car, which may show up as a false positive. It can take up to 30 minutes or so for all the various computers in a car to all go to sleep, although it's usually only a few minutes for most cars.)
It would take someone more skilled than I, or with better tools, to check current in a fuse box without removing fuses. Maybe I should watch that guy and get better...
You can check continuity across the contact points, but measuring a 75mA current via the voltage drop across a 0.0034ohm resistance (give or take) means reading 0.2mV, which is… borderline for a consumer multimeter.
I wonder if one couldn't identify the time it takes for the battery to get to some low point (50%?) and then determine the order of magnitude draw they would be looking for. 75mA would take a long time (I think) to drain the battery to where starter can't turn over (like a week?).
If you find such an article post it; I'd like to read something about that. Maybe it could also address the idea that economies based on exploitation are inherently unstable...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There's nothing in there about foreign entities or any other authors of speech. It's about speech (and religion and assembly and petition) itself, which the state is directed to leave the fuck alone. The variety of zany things any particular entity might want to say is not even the main point. Freedom of speech is important because it means we get to hear and read and experience speech from everyone and everywhere. As soon as a line is drawn around speakers we're not allowed to hear, we no longer have the freedom of speech. Many people are confused about this because they habitually speak without listening. Those of us who mostly listen are not confused in this manner.
If he had just said the widely-known-outside-USA truth, that there is no "genocide" of Uighurs, lots of people would have gotten upset. He doesn't care one way or the other about our latest fundamentalist-Christian-inspired intended casus belli, so the less he says about it the better for his firm.
All day long, every day, the news media attempts to gin up more wars. They foster ignorance, fear, and hatred. Foreign leaders who haven't been in the news for years are made the primary focus overnight, just because that's where we're supposed to bomb next. Not all of us can even imagine why we should fight people in other hemispheres who've never done anything to us, so our fear and hatred lands closer to home. That's a big reason we have such tyrannical prison sentences.
If we didn't have a gigantic military that spends over a trillion dollars a year on the purchase of armaments, our armaments manufacturers would have less money to make our news media insane.
Before the plague forced pervasive WFH, this was every Friday when a bunch of us would pick somewhere for lunch and all pile into the fewest cars needed.
A long time ago I worked in an office like that. I usually biked to commute, so when we had one more person going than cars going to lunch, I just biked to the restaurant as well. Otherwise, I rode in someone's car. Still, none of the drivers did this "daily". Neither this nor sibling comment describe a "daily" situation. If you need a big sedan once a month and big SUV twice a year, just rent at those times and drive something more practical the rest of the year.
Cookies are used for things as simple as nighttime color theme preference. Someone more knowledgeable than either of us will probably point out that GDPR doesn't care about cookies like that...
Yes, GDPR doesn't care about cookies like that, it starts to apply for personally identifiable cookies (e.g. ad tracking which tries to make unique id's) but not for generic "preference=nighttime" ones.
This crap does not benefit any defensible purpose of government. Probably it does benefit certain government employees. The principal-agent problem appears again.
How do you define the principal-agent problem when appied to govt, though? Govt and its departments are not 'owned', and cabinet secretaries and even Presidents are not principals. Who is the 'principal': that particular govt's most powerful donors and lobbyists? Also, govt has both career and political appointees, the latter can change every 4/8 years. So seems to me there are multiple groups of agents/parties.
So when you say 'does not benefit any defensible purpose of government', is that a statement about political science, rather than two-party govt system with lots of lobbying? I mean it seems like any policy you could concoct would benefit some (posibly small) interest-group of people somewhere, unless it was 100% wasteful.
No one who has read your link would then question whether the chief executive is a principal: of course not. In polities who aspire to representative government, agents are anyone in public employ. Principals are the rest of us. Our interests are not served by solving problems without oversight, as GP suggests.
But still unclear which among us is the Principal, in US-style democracy? Principals are only the tiny few among us who control election outcomes, through funding/ influencing/ lobbying or (rarely) affecting the outcome in one of the 8% of House seats that are still competitive [0]. Even if you believe it is all the rest of us, we certainly aren't equally influential principals.
> Our interests are not served by solving problems without oversight, as GP suggests.
Sure, that's a given. But many of us think the oversight is working on our behalf, yet isn't. (Compare e.g. the sham of the TikTok oversight hearings vs the not-very-effective Facebook ones.)
You might have to reprogram your radio channels...