The one pure EV that Toyota makes was co-developed with Subaru and is in fact a terrible EV by current standards. It would have been a mediocre EV 10 years ago.

Perhaps "disappointing" is more appropriate? For a company that has decades of electric drivetrain experience is is perplexing that Toyota could produce something so subpar. They rode their battery patent exclusivity for so long they forgot how to be competitive in an evolving market.
=Smidge=

Titan's atmosphere is rather calm; not an issue. At the surface, the winds measured by Huygens were 0,3 m/s.

You actually can use solar power in extreme environments - even Venus's surface has been shown to be compatible with certain types solar, though you certainly get very poor power density. Dragonfly, as noted above, uses an RTG.

Planetary scientists frequently refer to moons that are large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium as planets in the literature. Examples, just from a quick search:

"Locally enhanced precipitation organized by planetary-scale waves on Titan"

"3.3. Relevance to Other Planets" (section on Titan)

"Superrotation in Planetary Atmospheres" (article covers Titan alongside three other planets)

"All planets with substantial atmospheres (e.g., Earth, Venus, Mars, and Titan) have ionospheres which expand above the exobase"

"Clouds on Titan result from the condensation of methane and ethane and, as on other planets, are primarily structured by circulation of the atmosphere"

"... of the planet. However, rather than being scarred by volcanic features, Titan's surface is largely shaped..."

"Spectrophotometry of the Jovian Planets and Titan at 300- to 1000-nm Wavelength: The Methane Spectrum" (okay, it's mainly referring to the Jovian satellites as planets, but same point)

"Superrotation indices for Solar System and extrasolar atmospheres" - contains a table whose first column is "Planet", and has Titan in the list, alongside other planets

Etc. This is not to be confused with the phrase "minor planet", which is used for asteroids, etc. In general there's a big distinction in how commonly you see the large moons in hydrostatic equilibrium referred to as "planets" and with "planetary" adjectives, vs. smaller bodies not in hydrostatic equilibrium.

Why?

NASA's obsession with Mars is weird, and it consumes the lion's share of their planetary exploration budget. We know vastly more about Mars than we know of everywhere else except Earth.

This news here is bittersweet for me. I *love* Titan - it and Venus are my two favourite worlds for further exploration, and dragonfly is a superb way to explore Titan. But there's some sadness in the fact that they're launching it to an equatorial site, so we don't get to see the fascinating hydrocarbon seas and the terrain sculpted by them near the poles. I REALLY wish they were going to the north pole instead :( In theory they could eventually get there, but the craft would have to survive far beyond design limits and get a lot of mission extensions. At a max pace of travel it might cover 600 meters or so per Earth day on average. So we're talking like 12 years to get to the first small hydrocarbon lakes and ~18 years to get to Ligeia Mare or Punga Mare (a bit further to Kraken Mare), *assuming* no detours, vs. a 2 1/2 year mission design. And that ignores the fact that they'll be going slower in the start - the nominal mission is only supposed to cover 175km, just a few percent of the way, under 200 metres per day. Sigh... Maybe it'll be possible to squeeze more range out of it once they're comfortable with its performance and reliability, but... it's a LONG way to the poles.

At least if it lasts for that long it'll have done a full transition between wet and dry cycles, which should last ~15 years. So maybe surface liquids will be common at certain points, rare in others.

> Please explain how it raises money with a tax rate that's below the existing corporate tax rate

15% minimum. You're a fool if you think a large corporation pays anywhere near the corporate tax rate. 15% is much more money than these businesses are paying now.

Some of them are so good at the game that they effectively "pay" a negative income tax. To pull the first example from that link; AT&T earned $29.6 and the Feds effectively paid them another $1.2B - effectively a -4% income tax. Under the IRA their tax bill goes from getting paid $1.2B to paying $4.4B

=Smidge=

Unlike Farty Don, who merely wants to shoot them.

All I see there is a reason to regulate crypto bullshit, if not ban it entirely. Can't afford to be wasting that much energy on fraud.

In any case; No, "it" can't happen... assuming by "it" you mean a return to coal as the dominant power source in the US. That ship has sailed.
=Smidge=

Which is strange because the "coal plant next door" is more than likely decommissioned. The share of electricity generated by coal in the US is about 16% right now annual average, down from roughly 44% just 15 years ago.

Guess it's time to get a new snarky comment!
=Smidge=

Don't trust a company with "spin" in their name.

Sometimes a hypothesis has potentially observable implications, even if a mad scientist can't reproduce everything in their lab.

I think it has been decades since cosmologists believed the universe is expanding at a constant rate.

India is full of separate ethnic groups in addition to the caste system. So much so that some ethnic groups are deemed to belong in a specific caste and culminating in ethnic groups living in isolation from the central authority.

IANAPhysicist, but isn't a thrust of 1g specific to the mass you are accelerating? Same device pushing heavier mass gives less acceleration?

Is a claim that you can create a thrust of 1g even meaningful without additional details?

... are we putting blatant pseudoscience on Slashdot? Are we becoming Natural News? Ir InfoWars maybe?