This sounds like it could be much better than the current system, which constantly churns out new editions to keep the used book market at bay. This way could be cheaper and produce less waste.

Deep cycle batteries are a type of lead-acid battery. The Leaf uses lithium-ion batteries, which behave very differently. Still, lithium-ion batteries should never be fully discharged, which may be a risk with his modifications.

Any program that measures charge is making a educated guess based on the past behavior of the battery. One of the people interviewed for the article states: “Until you can find out how much is really left in the batteries toward the end of its range, it’s just a guess-o-meter.” Any indicator of charge is making a guess. Perhaps his program is better at guessing, or maybe he just leaves less room for battery health, but any program that works to tell lithium-ion battery charge will have to take into account the discharge profile of that battery (which is non-linear when measured by voltage).

This brings to mind a great tactic that could be used undermine climate change research:

Scientist 1 publishes a grim study with inflated numbers.
Scientist 2 reveals that Scientist 1 is wrong.
Incident is used to discredit all climate studies.

This is a great point. They can actually make more money off of the fewer customers. What they should actually be worried about is the perception of the loss and the apparent stock decrease it is causing.

Still, I think they could have managed this a lot better. I'm one of the people who canceled.

Because mercenaries worked so well for them.

It's two different game models for two different games, why would that be hypocritical?

I'm sorry, but steel isn't a chemical, and doesn't have a chemical formula since it is not composed of molecules.

The problem is that this article badly summarizes the results of computer modeling that is supposed to represent human interactions. Apparently the tipping point for their simulation is 10%. Without seeing the actual original research findings, it is difficult to see if this actually matters, but the available article seems to say that the 10% is irrespective of network structure.

The computer simulation seems more analogous to a disease outbreak than to an idea. Imagine a percentage of people are zombies. They can only attack their friends, who can fight them so long as they have more living than dead friends nearby (I am assuming here that it is 51% that is needed to change status, but who knows what the actual research used). If they don't, then they switch sides and spread the outbreak. So the simulation might be saying that if 10% of people are initially zombies, then mankind is generally doomed. If it is less, then the outbreak will be contained.

I also find it interesting that the study was funded by the military.