A lot of assholes wearing spy glasses are going to get punched in the face.

If Broadcom are going to be dicks to their paying customers, maybe it's time for those customers to become someone else's. It's not like there aren't a multitude of ways to host VMs. And while some VMs are critical instances, I bet a lot more aren't - ephemeral and disposable VMs - gitlab runners and whatnot. Maybe it's time for companies to take stock of why they bother using VMware at all if the company is going to be assholes. Best way to avoid surprise audits and nasty surprises is to dump the product entirely.

If I look on currys.co.uk I see most washing machines are rated A. There are almost 5x as many rated A vs all the other grades combined. It would be interesting to compare efficiency of US vs EU machines in categories and consumption. I wonder if the major manufacturers sell the same machines in each territory, or use the fact that the US already has such weak energy labeling to shovel junk.

Energy ratings are about making products which are more energy efficient. Energy is a finite resource. Energy costs money to make and causes pollution. So efficiency is a good thing especially in aggregate. It's not about "energy rationing" or "Marxist" but paranoid conspiracy dribble seems to par for the course in your posts.

More and more goods are getting energy ratings. Because it is an effective way to motivate manufacturers to make efficient products that appeal to more prospective customers.

Crypto platforms will find some way for people to borrow/trade in CFDs, or futures, or some other intangible bullshit that skirts the rules. And that's just the legitimate ones. The ones based in Tuvalu, Myanmar or some other unregulated scam haven will just encourage people to borrow money under false pretenses for their "sure thing" platforms.

So any legislation has to mitigate for that and make it onerous for people to borrow, to transfer money or for trading platforms to exist outside of the regulation.

These are the same shitheads who rocked up to impoverished villages and got them to scan their eyeballs for some pittance reward.

Why do I need to "be specific?" The intentions should be very clear - to have smaller, more efficient cars and less pollution. Plenty of countries manage to tax vehicles based on the basis of these things, or have vignettes / fuel taxes / tolls that incorporate weights or CO2 emissions.

I said lifetime cost including manufacturing. That would include the cost of raw materials, construction etc. Batteries can be recycled at end of life and contain valuable materials.

I would say that roads are infrastructure so at least partly funded by general taxation. Everyone benefits from roads whether they have a car or not. But people who drive more, or drive larger vehicles occupying more road space should be paying for it through additional taxes. And conversely, some of those fuel taxes should be funding public transportation - buses, rail, footpaths etc.

Impose a tax on all vehicles. It can be calculated based on CO2 / NOX emissions (lifetime including manufacturing), and/or by vehicle weight, and/or vehicle length and/or other metrics with punitive levels for vehicles that pollute more or occupy more road space. Electric vehicles won't be exempt but the tax should be a statement that roads do not pay for themselves and cars that pollute should pay more. Thus not only does the tax raise revenue it also incentivizes changes in consumer patterns over time.

Just like happens in any sane country. But the US is not sane and the paranoid conspiracy dribble over EVs and electrification is a manifestation of that.

There are many kinds of hybrid and some vehicles are more vulnerable to others. Having two energy systems with lots of electronics, flammable liquids, heat contribute to a higher risk of fire. For heat, the biggest issues are likely to be air circulation, coolant, and battery overcharging. Pop the hood of a typical hybrid and there is way more "stuff" in there than a gasoline engine. If air flow is inadequate especially in hotter climates then it is more likely to set on fire. Packing stuff closer together also increases risk of damage from jolts or collisions to pipes & wires where they could come into contact with hot surfaces that cause wires to melt & short or fuel to vaporize and ignite.

The best way to mitigate these risks is isolating the battery from the engine and having mechanical shutoffs that kick in in abnormal conditions.

There you are Anonymous Coward. As for how they identify "risk", it's by the number of hybrids that set on fire. If you want more information than that go ask an actuarial.

Well technically he "succeeded" and it was such a triumph that his company immediately fucked off to Singapore

A warranty is definitely peace of mind. The cars with the highest risk of fire are hybrids - packing two systems into the same space must add a lot of heat, complexity and risk of failure.