This headline highlights how insano the conventional wisdom has been. Consider a similar headline announcing the situation before:
“Multi-Billion Dollar Venture Capital Backed Money Evaporator Factory Generously Subsidized By Tax-paying Public”
“Truly you have a dizzying intellect.”
I have a teeny tiny 2015 smartphone with a headphone jack, an SD card, the SIM removed, and a copy of Foobar2000 installed. It was never fast enough or capacious enough to be a very good portable internet portal, but it runs something simple like Foobar2000 very, very well. The battery still lasts longer than the one in my actual phone does. And it was (in a sense) free. Reduce Reuse Recycle.
…users can query Siri about, like asking the AI assistant what they should cook with the ingredients they have in front of them … may also use the cameras to help with things like turn-by-turn directions.
Those are some pretty underwhelming use-cases. I can’t see the world beating a path to anyone’s door for that. Even if you were so excited about these features that you were willing to overlook the privacy concerns, it seems like the phone you’ve already got would probably be just fine as a conduit for such services.
If they really believed in the free market they’d be willing to pay for some patience
Yes, good catch!
The article also does nothing to acknowledge or account for the way trump’s family cashed in, scoring deals that added up to potentially billions, i.e, far more than all the money on their little chart put together.
I am skeptical that any outsider can really say, in good faith, that trump’s wealth rose or fell during his first term anyway. That family’s finances are infamously obfuscated and shot through with fraud. Once a system passes a certain level of complexity, it becomes pretty trivial to paint it in whatever light you’d choose, and offer evidence to back that point of view up, too.
This seems to gleefully conflate wealth and income, in order to claim that the infamously-always-grifting trump lost a fortune during his first term. Using percent to decide who had the “biggest increase” to their wealth is a sneaky way of excusing the grifting of the richest among us. It points out “Democrat” or “Democratic” repeatedly but doesn’t use the word “Republican” even one time. Its supporting “according to Bloomberg” link doesn’t even go anywhere.
It is committed long-term maintenance that separates a road from a desire pathway.
It is committed long-term maintenance that eventually makes software solid enough to be someone else’s substrate.
/bombast
Nazis In Camo, Eh
That’s great but technically: Not a car.
If the drive motor / braking motor isn’t rotating, it’s not inducing any current, so there is no regeneration happening. Whatever system is holding your car (someone’s car) stopped on a hill, it is not ‘regen’. Period. Full stop. No argument possible. To believe otherwise is to believe in free energy.
I am about 99% sure your idea of “magnets” holding a car stopped on a hill is based on some kind of misunderstanding, but I’m not an electrical engineer. If you’ve read something that explains this, and you can link to it, I’ll look at it.
I never apply brakes when on a hill, as regen braking covers that to.
But what about coming to a complete stop on a hill? There’s no way for regen to do that, there has to be motion for it to work.
Do you know for a fact that your car (in “B” mode or whatever it is you’re using) doesn’t engage mechanical (friction) brakes on your behalf when appropriate? Or is this an assumption?
“We had to destroy our constitutional republic in order to save it.”
In fact, according to BMW, drivers of current EVs pretty much never activate their mechanical braking systems, relying instead on their electric motors to handle the job.
I didn’t think the regen could bring a car to a complete stop, like at a stop sign or a red light. They’re certainly not using the motors to hold your place on a hill, are they?
Or are they just saying BMW drivers never stop when they’re supposed to?
Where is the line between 1) dealing with our frustrations with these fascist murder clowns by rendering them as trivial and ridiculous, and 2) normalizing these fascist murder clowns by making them funny and relatable?
I don’t know the answer.
I’ve had some success identifying bugs with Google Lens / Google Image Search. But it sure hasn’t been 100%, and I’m sure some of us avoid Google on principle.
Gosh you’d almost think fame and wealth separate a person from the reality they share with the rest of us.
He doesn’t seem like such a nice fellow online here. I don’t think that means he tries to hurt people in real life.
I’m glad you haven’t experienced the rage that drivers often express towards cyclists. I don’t think its exclusively a US problem.
I’ve been riding bikes and driving cars for 30 years. It seems to me that any circumstance that requires drivers to slow down and consider how to respond to other people’s needs is a guaranteed rage trigger – for some fraction of the driving public. That seems to be carrying over into electric bikes as well.
Or perhaps don’t go out of your way to annoy other road users
There are basically two ways that bicyclists annoy motor vehicle drivers and wind up being threatened with deadly force on the regular:
By following the rules
By not following the rules
I hope this clears things up.
Crime stats are always kind of fraught, kind of untrustworthy, because the authorities have so much influence over what crimes are reported, recorded, counted. That influence works in ways that are obvious (cops persuading victims that reports are a waste of time) and in ways that are less obvious. It wouldn’t surprise me to hear that all of the ways are happening pretty hard in this political moment, in the wake of so much illegal ICE activity.
When the people see that the cops can’t be trusted, the people avoid talking to the cops. They report fewer crimes, they help solve fewer crimes.