EU airlines are obliged to provide a refund or compensation and/or return flights at the earliest opportunity in the case of cancellation depending on circumstances and what the customer wants. Also things like accommodation, food etc. It's much stronger than what the US is announcing, covering overbooking, downgrades, connecting flights etc as you can see from the website. Even in terms of what kinds of circumstance trigger compensation it is stronger.

The only significant change I see is US airlines have to refund automatically. I would be nice if the EU did this, but even an obligation for airlines to inform customers to initiate a claim would be a step up. That said, I only claimed 5 years back soon after it went into effect and circumstances may have changed since.

They had no obligation to provide snacks after we landed. That was just a cynical calculus to placate & cancel negative thoughts in passengers about the delay they just suffered. Even if one or two people on the whole flight don't claim because they got a "free" chocolate bar then its obviously worth it to the airline.

BTW I looked up delays and the threshold for 600 euro compensation on a >3500km flight is 3 hours not 4, so either I misremembered or the rules changed since this happened 5 years ago.

3rd party cookies are only distinguishable because they're issued by requests & scripts from domains other than the origin. I could easily see ad networks producing some kind of spyware-in-a-box container that resides in the domain itself. So the client requests scripts and cookies coming from the domain but they're emanating from this container that is synced up to the third party somehow.

Won't that be a fun security nightmare if that happens? Not only a bunch of spyware crap that is harder to distinguish from site content, but a bunch of fun new ways for attackers to inject malicious content into websites.

That's more or less it. You have to know to claim compensation and chase up the airline to get it. They sure as hell won't tell you, or automatically credit you with compensation. That probably means if a flight is delayed that only a fraction of the people will bother to go to the effort which might involve chasing down the forms and filling them in.

The EU is even stricter. If your plane is delayed by a certain number of hours you can also be claim compensation that varies depending on the delay and the flight duration. The funniest example of this happening to me & family catching a Virgin flight from Orlando to Manchester (back when the UK was in the EU). Takeoff was delayed by nearly 5 hours and the pilot floored it hoping to land under 4 hours but ultimately the flight took 4 hours and 2 minutes which was above the compensation threshold. We were able to claim 600 euro *each* for the delay which is more back than we paid for the return flight in the first place.

The interesting part to this is that of course Virgin *never* mentioned to customers they could claim compensation. But they absolutely knew they could get reamed because when the plane disembarked there were reps handing out snacks and drinks to the people coming off. The airline's calculus must be that most passengers (especially from the US) were ignorant of their rights or could be assuaged by a chocolate bar and wouldn't research the matter further. But I knew and made the claim which paid for half the holiday. We also helped ourselves to their free snacks too.

Every modern car regardless of propulsion could be bricked by an electronics failure or because some online cloud service gets discontinued and somehow makes the car non functional. It's certainly a concern but it's one at an industry wide level and drags in things like right to repair, protocol buses, open standards etc.

Toyota has pivoted away from hydrogen to ammonia of late but it's just more FUD in the same vein as their previous efforts. It's possibly even more insidious since NH3 is also hydrogen based and you can bet your boots that it would be made from fossil fuels and palmed off as "green" even though it plainly isn't. Fortunately it is likely to be even less successful than their hydrogen FUD.

That isn't to say there may be situations where ammonia could be considered a viable fuel source, but these are niches and certainly not for private passenger vehicles or other kinds of road freight.

I was watching a YouTube video about the Orkney Islands which has a lot of windfarms and one of the guys in charge of their energy operation said they used excess energy to generate hydrogen. But even the way he said it made clear this was not a viable or desirable thing to be doing, just that the energy would go completely to waste otherwise. Orkney's problem was the interconnector to the mainland couldn't export this excess but they're upgrading it so that by 2027 they can.

So resorting to hydrogen production can be seen as a problem with infrastructure rather than something desirable. I think even if a place has an excess of energy and nothing to do with it, that there are options which would be safer and still allow the energy to be reused, e.g. for cold climates superheated gravel or sand batteries are becoming viable and could be used to heat homes or for industry (boilers, kilns etc.) that would otherwise use fossil fuel for the same.

That has to be the silliest things I've ever read. The laws of physics are what stops green hydrogen from being made affordably and efficiently, not some shadowy, cabal of "greens" that somehow control of the purse strings of industry.

TVs have always suffered burn in, but you'd have to use the screen in a very atypical way to ever see it. I was once given a Mac Classic that came from someone who worked in Apple which had burn in from the test software ran constantly in its previous role.

As for OLED, it occurs after displaying a static image at a high brightness for a very long time. Assuming you're just watching TV or playing games it probably suffers no harm. Most OLED displays would even have strategies to mitigate burn-in, such as dimming the display or powering off after inactivity. That said, if an airport used OLED to show nothing but CNN or arrivals/departures then most likely it would suffer burn-in from portions of the screen that were static.

Toyota are flailing around because they spent the last ten years spreading FUD. Did you know they were once a major stakeholder in Tesla and even launched an early EV using some shared tech? But they sold their stake in Tesla and spent the last decade desperately trying to pretend battery electric vehicles don't exist.

I don't know what their endgame is either. Toyota has entered into manufacturing partnerships with some Chinese companies so maybe they'll belatedly sell EVs that are actually Chinese manufactured but under their design / logo. Maybe these will sell well. But it won't help the Japanese economy so I wonder what will happen with their domestic auto plants.

Most EV owners will charge overnight too. I've had my EV for a year now, and I've used a public charger precisely once. Obviously not everyone is lucky enough to be able to charge their car in their own driveway so joined up thinking is necessary. Norway has on chargers on the street, in carparks etc.

Yes never intended to. The issues with hydrogen are insurmountable - the cost of it, the lack of scalability, the energy required to make "green" hydrogen, the dirty secret that most hydrogen isn't green and comes from natural gas, the extreme volatility / danger of it, the lifetime of the fuel cell, and the environmental impact of hydrogen escaping into the atmosphere. All these are insurmountable issues, as has been demonstrated by the utter failure of this technology to scale up.

So now Toyota are playing the same tune with liquid hydrogen. Except liquid hydrogen must be stored in an insulated flask at -250c in the car and offgassed so it basically evaporates into the atmosphere if you don't use it in a few days. Great for methane production and nothing else. They're also hyping up ammonia which is merely an extremely toxic chemical that burns and produces nitrogen oxide, another potent greenhouse gas. It's so harebrained and desperate that I wonder who they're fooling any more. It may be some regions like the EU with EV deadlines will permit some synthetic fuel powered vehicles, but none of this garbage will be allowed.

As for why they're doing it, there is some geopolitics involved here since China has access to natural resources, but that's not all of it at all. It is primarily because Toyota's former CEO got a hate boner for electric vehicles and ever since they have been playing this charade. Toyota is also a domineering force in Japanese automotive circles and they've forced other makers down the same route. They will of course belatedly make some EVs, ironically made by Chinese OEMs, but by then it may be too late.

I'm sure QDEL is great but OLED already delivers most of what this tech screed promises and for substantially less. Building a factory that makes displays costs billions and these screens would *really* have to deliver significant energy saving, and brightness to justify the very large investment necessary to manufacture them. And also consumers would *really* want to buy them to overcome the enormous markup they'll command. Also, aside from its positives there are things which are not mentioned, such as how easy it is to manufacturer, how it deals with heat, cold, moisture, UV, how resilient it is to shock & pressure (e.g. if it were used in phones), what substrate it lives on, how easy it is to "print", what the production quality rate is, what the meantime between failure is and so forth.