I can't quite parse this sentence but I believe it can be summarized as PPVPN and their many variants.

"TOTAL $5,630,574" so $0.006 billion when rounding to the nearest billion. You also get the same amount by adding up the itemized list at the bottom of your page.

If you're looking for billions in "subsidy" look no further than Boeing and Northrop Grumman: $2 billion per launch the SLS qualifies as pure subsidy.

Did you know that you also "subsidized" your car manufacturer's material research? And also the research of your computer's chipmaker? And again when you bought your smartphone, etc. That's just how buying products off-the-shelf works.

Source?

Except it's not the name of a rocket...

In France these questions have been answered already. In particular see scenario M0 which goes full renewable and 0% nuclear in 2050 and compare it to N03 which shoots for 50% nuclear.

Instant Ink sent me a black ink cartridge and my printer would not recognize it. Then support sent me another black ink cartridge and that one did not get recognized. I then had a long debugging session with support to thoroughly document the issue and they sent me yet another black ink cartridge and that one worked (and support followed up too).

So basically what I'm saying is that they had some cartridge compatibility issue with their own cartridges and if that extended to non-Instant Ink cartridges, this could be the issue you ran into.

Given that the maximum speed limit is around 55 mph, your average speed will be no more than 40 mph so 200 mph per day means 5 hours of driving per day, at a minimum. Add to that an 8 hours workday, 8 hours of sleep and you end up with just 3 hour left for breakfast, lunch, diner and everything else you have to fit in the day. That's how contrived your "Teslas are unfit scenario" is.

Also EV cars are very popular in Sweden which is not known for its warm weather. So your "warm weather" only argument is also bunk. Same with the "lots of time to sit around charging" arguments: Teslas can regain over 60% of their autonomy in under 20 minutes.

The only argument that's somewhat valid is carrying / pulling cargo. But isn't that what pickups are for? And as we all know pickups are not cars which is how they evade the pollution regulations, right? That means they're not impacted by the 2035 ban on ICE cars. And in any case, you're also ignoring the Cybertruck, the F150-Lightning, and making the assumption that EV cars will be no better 12 years from now, totally ignoring the progress seen in the past decade.

Wondering why people would react in a hostile way. Because you make arguments in bad faith. That's why.

I wonder why these prices even matter. When a kid gets convicted of copyright infringement on a CD, he does not get fined 99 cents per song. It's $30,000 per infringement so $3,000,000 if there are 10 songs on the CD. So why don't they just take the number of infringements, I'll round it to 500, multiply by $30,000 and set the fine at $15,000,000?

Ok, to be fair I guess these amounts usually get adjusted. But still where's the punishment if the Navy just pays what it should have paid all along, without even the 7 years of interests (2015 to 2022), and court fees? I guess it's good to be the navy.

You can find this type of anecdote for any brand and most models of car, most of them fossil fuel of course. And then you find the opposite anecdotes of people driving 300 000 miles or more with their cars and saying they are still in perfect condition. So it's best to just ignore anecdotes. More reliable sources indicate that these days cars can last 12 years and 200 000 or more miles and even 300 000 miles for electric cars (but probably not Nissan Leafs due to their poor battery design).

So how does this spare you from catching the disease, and potentially dying from it, if you have to catch the disease first?

The Tesla connector seems nice at least, as far as the form factor goes (I don't know how it compares for the electrical and data aspects, particularly for bidirectional charging which Tesla is stubbornly refusing to support). However adopting it only in the USA while the rest of the world sticks to CCS would make no sense. It would just fragment the market for cables and chargers like the legacy Chademo standard does. So hopefully they will work to either make it a worldwide standard, or give up before damaging the ecosystem.

It absolutely is.
On the AI-generated image front one can argue that only the style is being copied: pointillism, surrealism, medieval painting, etc. That's not copyrightable: no artist has ever been sued for copyright infringement (successfully at least), just because their painting is in the same style as another artist. But in the case of Copilot is the generated code really original or is it just composed of chunks of the source material. If the latter it would be a derivative work and thus copyright infringement.
It's going to be hard to figure out if / under which conditions these two cases are different. But there is a lot more room for creative expression in a 2 MB image than in a 1000 bytes chunk of text so I think Copilot starts from a much weaker position than the AI image generators. That Microsoft trained Copilot on open-source code and not their own code also does not help their case.

Please explain why Microsoft did not train Copilot on their own code if the generated code cannot possibly infringe on the copyright of the source material.
Nat Friedman claims that "training ML systems on public data is fair use" but training it on their own code would have avoided this controversy entirely. Also it would have been the perfect source material for people who are mostly going to use it to write Windows applications.

Clearly Microsoft knows Copilot is likely to infringe on the copyright of the source material but as long as it's not their code they don't care.
Even worse, Microsoft have intentionally designed Copilot as a code laundering machine that allows them to pilfer open-source code for use in their proprietary products.

According to Microsoft the code generated by Copilot is not subject to the license of the code it has been trained on because it's too transformative. It's interesting then that, according to the article, Copilot was trained on open-source code but not on Microsoft's own source code. That's an odd choice for a tool that will mostly be used to generate code for the Microsoft ecosystem if they are not worried about Copilot violating the copyright of the code it was trained on.

That sounds very specific to SQLite.
Wine provides 758 dlls and programs to the Windows applications plus a few extra libraries. Concatenating them all into a single binary would make absolutely no sense and break compatibility with most Windows applications. Also SQLite is a pretty small project if it only has 1MB of source code. So compilation would have been fast anyway. Wine is 190 MB of C files. I doubt the compiler would like such a large file. Plus that would mean taking a huge compilation performance hit from the loss of multithreading.
GTK, GNOME, QT, KDE, even LibreOffice and lots of other projects where compilation takes time are in the same boat as Wine.