He mentions why it looks old on the home page, point number 12.

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.

When they load you into the trains, Iâ(TM)ll be taking photos to feed my Ai so folks never forget.

Until the next generation of you calls for censorship and forced speech.

Misinformation is free expression, comrade.

No, aggressively dismissing civics instruction as being some sort of celebration of evil white colonialist suppression and thus vilifying things like the Constitution are what have been a detriment to civics instruction.

The continual projection of "look! an autocrat!" at the guy who's spent billions to free, for example, a platform like Twitter from unconstitutionally autocratic censorship would be starting to get funny if it didn't betray such a profoundly inverse understanding of the topic.

No, intelligent people are more likely to go to college. And colleges have been administratively occupied by (now) at least two generations of lefties cultivated by the aging hippies from the 1960s. The schools they run become progressive cultural echo chambers, churning out more of the same. If by "liberal" you mean it in the classic sense (liberty-minded), then you're right. But there is nothing liberty-minded about the contemporary liberal (as that term is now used) contingent running education in K-through-PhD. The opposite.

Yes, rampant inflation creates jobs.

Fuck off with those data points.

I voted for no one and am glad.

Assuming, of course, that you can make an axial motor which fits his idea, at the price he's quoting, there are still a couple problems with this.

Vehicles have sprung weight and unsprung weight. Sprung weight is weight which is insulated from the road by the springs and other suspension elements. Your engine and vehicle body are part of the sprung weight. Your wheels and brakes are part of the unsprung weight (no springs isolating them from the road).

For a smooth ride, you want your ratio of sprung : unsprung to be as high as possible. That way, the weight of the vehicle keeps the wheels stuck to the road and the wheels bouncing up and down on the road transmit less motion through the suspension to the body. Adding a motor to each hub is going to boost the unsprung weight, meaning you vehicle will have a rougher ride. That's problem #1.

You want as few moving parts, as possible, as part of the unsprung weight because they take a genuine beating driving over the road. Putting the motors in the unsprung weight means the motors will take a beating, which means they're going to have a shorter lifespan than you might hope. That's problem #2.

If you could remove a vehicle's differential and replace that with one containing one or more electric motors, such that the motors are part of the sprung weight, that would help to fix both issues. That, however, would add considerably to the weight and price tag, especially when you consider most front-wheel-drive vehicles already have a very crowded engine bay.

I admire his thought about retrofitting existing vehicles and turning them into Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles (PHEVs). I agree that, if 90+% of your daily driving could be done on electricity, you would seriously diminish the amount of fossil fuels needed. I agree that, if you are only adding 20 miles or so of range, you don't need such a large battery. I agree that retrofitting an existing vehicle into a PHEV, without spending 5 figures doing it, could go a LONG way toward diminishing fuel usage (mod your existing vehicle, rather than acquiring a completely different one). I agree with his motivations, and I've pondered what he suggests, some time ago. Unfortunately, I just don't see such an easy way to reach the goal.

Good public transportation is always empty in Chicago, and it is always a city bus clogging up streets for my Uber.

Public transportation, even if on time, takes 150-300% longer than a car.

It keeps people poor by allowing them to live 90 minutes each way from work instead of making their bosses have to pay them better to afford to live closer.

How I spend my money IS expression and government in the US isn't allowed to censor me.

My freedom of speech = freedom to spend how I want to spend my savings.

No, the SCOTUS simply pointed out that Biden's actions were contrary TO STATUTE, and that the separation of powers prevents him from just waving his wand and ignoring that. The SCOTUS didn't pick some dollar amount out of thin air, nor set some precedent about dollar amount thresholds. They recognized the structure of a law written by congress, and recognized that Biden's handlers were trying to skate around it for purely political reasons.

You telling people we have to change out the Supreme Court in order to find a way to give more unchecked, counter-constitutional executive power to an administration like Biden's is some seriously toxic stuff.

You are aware that Facebook and prior Twitter took orders from the standing administration, correct?

I'd be happy with a plug-in hybrid but precious few of them are on the US market.

What I'd rather see is a trailer with a gasoline engine and a generator, such that I could use a lower-range EV around town but still hook up a trailer (rented, not owned) when I needed to do a road trip which was well beyond the range of my batteries.

The technology being described isn't "free energy." It's a low-energy capture device made from expensive-to-make and fragile substances that probably won't sustain very well out in the real world. It transfers a modest amount of energy from the tiny kinetic movement of water droplets in humid air as they - in their random movements - bang into the walls of the material described. A very large, very dense cube of this material might produce a few kilo watt hours of juice in a steady enough way to be useful under some specific circumstances. Who in the summary or article is saying anything about "free?" It will involve a lot of expensive, fiddly fuss to put it to work.

Wow. This is quite painful for you, isn't it. Let me guess: you lost your job at Twitter censoring content, huh? That's a shame.