That's pretty stupid logic. You could knock down half the houses somewhere, watch prices and homelessness shoot up, then say housing is still affordable because the richest 50% can still afford to buy. If your definition of affordable is such that a $300,000,000 super yacht counts as affordable (because someone bought it) you probably have a crap definition...

Not just that it happens but that they feel it is sufficiently important to be on their top 3 things to highlight. I'd be pissed about the waste of money and resources if my local government was doing that.

Even if I didn't approve of treating people with respect even if they aren't hetereosexual white men because it's the right thing to do I'd approve of it because of how much joy it gives me to see bigoted snowflakes like you crying about it.

Arguably that's a reason why long term guidance like this from governments makes sense. 12 years is plenty of time to increase EV production if you know the demand will be there and that ICE sales will be vastly decreased, if you don't know that then companies will hedge and conversion will be slower.

AC's just your typical AC repubtard. They spend all their time thinking homosexual or pedophilic thoughts, self-loathing about it, then project that onto their 'enemies' as some form of coping/hiding mechanism.

Given your typical Republican can't manage a sentence without it including pedophilia, and the way Trump has literally bragged about leching on underage girls changing at beauty pagents, I have to assume Biden actually being a paedophile would win him plenty of rightwing votes...

Then you're pretty sure about something you've misunderstood. What I assume you are confusing is you think the correct economic principle that increased demand relative to supply causes price to increase is relevant to the point you are replying to. The point they are making is that in macro-economic terms efficiences of scale mean that the cost of producing something decrease the larger you can scale production. The overhead costs of building and running a factory that produces 100,000 cars a year will be less per car than one that produces 50,000 cars per year; this means it is viable to produce cars for a lower sale price in the larger factory.

I think we're a long way away from reaching the point where this would meaningfully impact on the price comparison of ICE vs Electric cars though.

This is the point that a lot of these blame the mega-wealthy articles intentionally ignore. Firstly the top 1% globally really isn't mega-wealthy, I think the threshold currently is around $1m networth, and 20,000,000 Americans would be considered to be in the top 1% globally (about 6% of Americans); at that level it's fairly likely you're still flying coach rather than private jet. Secondly, the main driver of the disconnect is that a fuckload of people are really poor and have an impact that is trivial compared to even relatively poor people in wealthy nations.

You let your boss yell and scream at you whenever they feel like and just take it like a gimpy and have the gall to call other people cowards... interesting; must be a younger generation thing to have some self-respect I suppose.

If you have an issue with me excessively extrapolating your position then you should consider that you are doing the exact same thing based on less than a sentence referring to a single incident.

I don't disagree with the access to charging point but I think it's a mistake to assume that this is an effective solution. Even this super efficient car, designed more as an experiment than as a plausible product, running at optimal times in a location with optimal conditions, can't generate power as fast as it consumes it so you're reliant on having charge before you start driving. If you've got somewhere you can park and get enough sunlight either at home or work then you've also got somewhere that adding charging functionality would make sense.

When you do any calculations around the likely range/average rate you could travel with a self-solar-charging car it isn't practical for anything but very slow short journeys with strong sunlight. Car's have relatively limited space to fit solar panels, and any batteries to allow you to store power to use when there isn't strong solar coverage add considerable weight. If you don't fit lots of batteries then if your car is sat in a sunny carpark all day it will only be able to store a small amount of energy for when you want to drive home in the evening or go somewhere at night.

The likely end solution for people without room to park a car and charge it is to move away from car ownership as self-driving vehicles become more established and get a vehicle on demand as required.

I'm really not sure about this court decision and its potential impact. Firstly Facebook isn't discriminating, it is allowing people buying advertising to restrict their audience/discriminate. It could be argued they shouldn't enable this, but any harm was caused by the company choosing not to advertise to this individual.

My real issue is with where the line is drawn between discriminating or not; are companies really required to advertise all products to all age groups, genders etc in all cases? So companies making bras need to advertise equally to men... How indirect can discrimination be before it is ok? Is an advert that is advertised in magazines aimed at under 20s (with a readership 95% under 20) discrimination, or is the fact that theoretically someone who is 60 could read it enough to make it ok? In which case is it ok to advertise on Facebook using age bandings as long as their are at least some adverts shown to each age demographic (say 1 to over 40s for every 40 to under 40s)?

I can't get over how badly worded some of the article is. I've read it twice and I still can't tell from their explanation what it is Google did. How does giving a loser a 'handicap' make their offer more competitive and cause the winner to spend more!? Ironically the only thing that is clear in the article is the bit that explains the headline is hyperbole and the 15% increase relates to more than one change "Google estimated that technique along with charging more for ads that used more words in their text would increase revenues by 15%".

Virtually no one genuinely believes in unrestricted free speech (beyond the relatively narrow scope of relating to government intervention in the US constitution), meaning the freedom to say anything without consequence. Can you honestly say you think someone should be able to do all the below without fear of consequence:
1. Someone has a severe allergy, you lie to someone producing food to say they don't, the person dies of an allergic reaction.
2. Someone follows another individual around whenever they are in public making constantly harmful verbal remarks (for example mocking a traumatic event. The individual being followed commits suicide, having previously made clear they can't cope with the remarks of the other individual.
3. A contractor finds out that the ground a road is being built on is unstable with a considerable risk of fatalities if the surface fails. They don't disclose this to anyone. (Note: If you think you think allowing coerced speech and full free speech aren't incompatible you are mistaken).
4. Someone is in court and they lie to provide an allibi that would mean a murderer will be acquited.
5. A middleman who knows where illegal items and services can be bought and provides the information to others; for example putting people who want guns without a license in touch with sellers.
6. Individual 'A' who knows something of value to 'B' and wants 'C' dead. Individual A makes clear to B that they will give them the information only when they have killed C; B then kills C.
7. A citizen repeats classified information to an enemy of the state who then uses it to cause harm to the citizens country (think typical treason stuff).
8. An election official lies about the number of votes for a candidate leading to someone who should not have won being elected.

To be clear, if you need to rely on the idea that any of the above would involve the individual being punished for the consequences of their action, or the circumstances of their action (being under oath), then you aren't for unrestricted free speech.

Given how poorly worded, and far away from a statement that could be validated, your claim is I'm pretty sure you'd make an even worse lawyer, and ChatGPT is very clear it isn't a lawyer up front. I asked ChatGPT 4 for an answer to what I think is the question you claimed to pose and got an answer that is far more nuanced and definitely wasn't 'yes'.

Question: Is it legal to discriminate in favour of candidates when hiring to improve diversity in a company?

Answer:
I am not a lawyer, but in the U.S., the legal framework surrounding affirmative action and employment is complex and nuanced. Here's a general overview based on information available as of my last training in 2022:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It covers employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments.
Affirmative Action: Some employers implement affirmative action plans to address historical disparities and promote workplace diversity. These plans can, in certain situations, include taking an individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin into account in employment decisions to redress past discrimination or address underrepresentation.
Supreme Court Decisions: The U.S. Supreme Court has evaluated affirmative action programs, particularly in the context of higher education. The Court has held that a narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits of a diverse student body can be lawful. But the legal principles guiding educational affirmative action might not directly transfer to employment contexts.
"Quotas" vs. "Goals": Courts have generally been skeptical of "quotas" or hard-set numbers/percentages that must be met. However, aspirational "goals" set by employers to guide their diversity efforts might be viewed differently if they do not result in discrimination against any group.
Federal Contractors: Under Executive Order 11246, certain federal contractors are required to take affirmative action to ensure that they employ, and treat during employment, individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. These contractors might have specific goals or benchmarks they aim to achieve but must still ensure that their processes do not discriminate against any group.
State Laws: Some states have their own regulations related to affirmative action or discrimination in hiring. For instance, California's Proposition 209 bans state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.

Given the intricacies of this topic and the potential for legal challenges, any company considering implementing policies or practices to improve diversity should consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

it's only in the last 15-20 years that people have started cowardcowwing behind smartphones and turned into introverted fuckfaces.

Rarely do I see comments that better evidence themselves than this.