I mean Pages is free.

Just petty bullshit from a petty, bullshit administration

We went with a PHEV when I renewed our lease last month, specifically because gas prices

PHEVs are typically discouraged in many countries nowadays, because drivers fall into one of two categories: A) plug-in to charge on a (virtually) daily basis at home B) plug-in to charge as necessary, some of whom have no home-charging (apartment-dweller)

PHEVs make no sense for category (A) people because there is no range-anxiety if you home-charge every day. Typical drivers do 40km a day on average. Even an entry-level Tesla model 3 has >530km of range, and goes up to 750km for the model 3.

PHEVs also make no sense for category (B) people, because the PHEV has just 50km of range. So if you don't plug in all the time, you're basically driving a gasoline car with an extra engine and a battery, increasing weight (= fuel) and maintenance cost.

Various studies of real-world usage have shown PHEVs are less efficient because the behavior of its drivers. They'd be better off just driving a regular hybrid, like a Corolla.

The only area where PHEVs make sense are people who drive short-distances on a daily basis, plug in the car always at home, yet make frequent (say weekend) long trips of 6+ hours of driving without any breaks, or long trips to remote areas with no charging infrastructure. This is a pretty rare combination. Most PHEVs are traditionally owned by urbanites lured by a green dream and green subsidies, who're better off getting a pure EV or just an efficient boring hybrid.

Curious why not pure EV?

We take long road trips, with three dogs, often. The anxiety of thirty minute charge stops just isn't super fun (we've tried it).

Range anxiety is probably the only reason one would choose a PHEV these days. They’re slightly cheaper also but that’s unlikely to be a factor.

might depend on the country.

US/california would probably be 50c/kwh (though gas there is close to $7)

all other US states are less (for now, datacenters, ugh)

There is absolutely a truth requirement.

This is why you have to say "I think this person is a murderer" and not "This person is a murderer."

One is opinion. One is fact.

This isn't super hard.

Regulation is forward looking.

How do you hold people accountable for reckless behavior in the past?

A lawsuit is basically the only real thing you can do.

Companies have gotten increasingly comfortable doing deeply unpopular things because they know, so long as the right people make money from it, the worse thing that will happen to them is some people being mean to them on Bluesky.

Right, see, again, giving away the game. It's not about the water (if it was, the objection would be easy to dismiss). Everything is downstream of a populist argument against AI progress.

The loss of income of people displaced by AI may end up eating less meat to survive.

I can think of no product with the Trump name that hasn't proven to be a catastrophic disappointment or scam.

The only thing with trump I like is a hand of bridge.

we started using the term obama for that just because we hate saying that other word

The steaks were probably OK.

The steaks sold through Sharper Image?

The 1989 board game is supposedly an acceptable variation on Monopoly. I guess it's sales were a disappointment for the publisher, but not catastrophic.

I mean, his reality TV show did well. It was awful, but people liked it.