No, it's well ascertained that EVs are fine for almost every civilian use case these days, but lets also remember that this probably doesn't apply for you specifically, because so much as having an app on your phone for your car (EV or not) is too much for you to handle.

Well, yes, you do, because the BMS keeps track of that.

A gas car, on the other hand....

And I'm never 'caught' with low charge in the first place, because I start every day with a full charge, so....?

Gas cars lose comparable range in cold weather, so...?

https://www.energy.gov/energys...

And when you mix in 'you can preheat your cabin while still connnected to your charger,' EVs lose *less* range than gas cars.

Not really. If social media causes stupidity, kids should stop using social media, cuz it'll make them stupid.

If stupid people use social media, kids should stop using social media, because it obviously isn't making them smarter, while other activities just might.

Only install software updates when at home and you can be without the car.

They're also never actually free on the scamazon store, it's just a subscription that you don't ever own.

It's coming to light due to the private equity buyout lead by esteemed real estate criminal Jared Kushner. This is likely anti-woke washing to entice a class of customers who have already moved along due to EA sucking for lots of other reasons which won't be addressed.

Why solve real problems intentionally created due to mismanagement when you can just play the culture war card and get a bunch of knee-jerk reactions?

When you're angry about the Klan being portrayed as the bad guys...

Aren't the smartphones the conduit to these addictive, mind-altering services? You could easily sue Apple and Google for developing the operating systems and UIs/app stores that enable predatory applications and ecosystems to thrive.

However, to my knowledge, with the exception of people on public assistance... you don't just get given a smartphone. Someone with disposable income has to buy it... then give it to the vulnerable youth in question.

This sounds very much like more posturing by politicians and lawyers if not an outright cash grab than an honest move to protect developing brains from manipulation...

Neither would have any of the other anti-consumer policy changes that are liable to financially molest you.

Maybe look under the large heading "Unsubstantiated claims" which lays out several examples known at the time the article was published. Now you might take issue with the depth in which they cover the unsubstantiated claims as such, but the article you cited here very intentionally and transparently acknowledged the fact that there were problems with the dossier.

Now shall we contrast that with a certain mainstream American press outlet's coverage of the Biden laptop?

Well, back when I was a kid, 'autistic' meant, 'screaming and flapping your arms when somebody turned on the light wrong.'

"Rain Man" was a movie about what was, at the time, considered a high-functioning autistic.

Most of what we would nowadays call 'ASD' was just 'quirky' or 'weird' or 'shy.'

Go find a copy of the 1980s nuclear war film Testament. Watch the scenes with the sons. One son, the youngest, has several scenes with things like 'running the TV, a radio, and a record player at the same time,' 'being told that he can't only eat bananas,' 'wearing ear muffs at the dinner table' and so on.

Nowadays, that's clearly stimming, sensory restrictions and ARFID, and probably ADHD, and he's be labelled 'AuDHD'.

Back then? He was just being a kid.

But nowadays, 'doesn't look people in the eye "enough"' means you're ASD, and 'looks people in the eye *too much"' means you're ASD.

Given that we don't even know what 'Autism' is, we ascribe way too much to it.

I think you might have misunderstood what actually happened in the two examples you cited. In both cases they say the mainstream press took a more cautious approach when the reliability of the sources was questionable.

Let's have a look, shall we?

Shortly after the Post story broke, social media companies blocked links to it, while other news outlets declined to publish the story due to concerns about provenance and suspicions of Russian disinformation.[8] On October 19, 2020, an open letter signed by 51 former US intelligence officials warned that the laptop "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."[9] By May 2023, no evidence had publicly surfaced to support suspicions that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme.

All that proves is that hindsight is 20/20. At the time the story was suspected by experts to be bogus, and in your view an impartial news media would have run with it anyway? The "fair and balanced" media certainly did. You might also recall that nothing came out of the laptop "scandal" other than a gun charge for Hunter. The idea that the laptop implicated the "Biden Crime Family" remains domestic misinformation. Moving on.

"On January 10, 2017, CNN reported that classified documents presented to Obama and Trump the previous week included allegations that Russian operatives possess "compromising personal and financial information" about Trump. CNN said it would not publish specific details on the reports because it had not "independently corroborated the specific allegations".[126][134] Following the CNN report,[135] BuzzFeed published a 35-page draft dossier that it said was the basis for the briefing, including unverified claims that Russian operatives had collected "embarrassing material" involving Trump that could be used to blackmail him. BuzzFeed said the information included "specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives".

So Buzzfeed published the dossier, and you're mad at CNN? Unrelated, while the more salacious details were never proven, the broader claims that Russia interfered with the election and the extensive ties between Russian nationals and Trump campaign people were true.

TL;DR - To demonstrate how biased the mainstream "liberal" press is, you offered up two detailed examples of them treating unverified information responsibly.