That’s what makes the difference in China. I will use the term trucks in the global sense, ie what Americans call semis. In the UK, a semi means something quite different

Economics — opex is much more important than capex for trucking TCO and ROI
Architecture — truck ICE trains are really big and heavy, so the weight differential is smaller than you’d expect, plus the ladder frame construction and large axles of trucks means there’s lots of space for a battery that adds structural rigidity and lowers the centre of gravity, plus motors on the axles. Auke Hoekstra has a presentation on this (it also covers the economics)
Cultural barriers — There’s no fetishisation of trucking as the epitome of manliness, as there is in the US. Chinese truck drivers and fleet operators aren’t emotionally invested in the roar of a diesel engine. In fact, Chinese truck drivers value the quiet operations, lack of fumes, smooth accelerations, and lack of gears provided by EVs (there’s interesting interviews with Chinese truckers about their experiences with EV trucks on YT)

This is correct, semis are known as artics, lorries or trucks outside the US

You're way down the rabbit hole. You think you're rational as well, which is the worst part of it. The flu vaccine reduces childhood hospitalisation rates by about 70% and adult by about 40%. Those are massive wins. Being hospitalised for flu means you are terribly ill, and avoiding that is absolutely fucking fantastic.

The C19 vaccine nonsense you spout is just that, nonsense. It shows you know absolutely nothing about how medical treatment trials work. If you did, you'd have known about statistical power, and understood why recruiting 40k volunteers in the middle of an infectious disease pandemic with a high event accumulation rate would inherently lead to much faster and more accurate results that recruiting 2k volunteers for a typical intervention.

You're also batshit insane to say that C19's severity was "vastly overblown". More than a million died from it in the US alone.

It took literal seconds of Googling to find, you pathetic lazy fuck

https://x.com/SanguineChester/...

Has been pushing hard for decades to get those religious lunatics into a fervor right? The Republican party actively encourages religious extremism so that they can Farm those people for votes.

It's always about the same thing. Taking all the money and leaving voters with nothing. If you're going to rob somebody blind and do it year in year out like the Republican party does you have to keep offering them something in exchange for all the economic security you are stealing.

It needs to be something intangible since the Republicans are taking all the tangible stuff like money and property and food and medicine and healthcare and education.

And that's why you will see religious freedom bills that give people the right to leave their children unvaccinated risking the lives of everybody else.

They get all the money and you get to skip your vaccines or teach your kids the Earth is 6,000 years old or whatever lunatic nonsense that isn't real you insist is real.

Before 2000 the government paid for 70% of college tuition. By 2003 after several rounds of cuts it was 20%.

Meanwhile here's Donald Trump telling us we need more immigration and h-1bs because Americans are just too dumb. Seriously Google it. That's what he said.

I wish my country would stop proving him right...

The risk of creating a viable competitor is too big so they will do pretty much anything a government wants in order to avoid being kicked out of the country.

It's not about the profit they can make in the country it's about making sure that there is never a viable competitor that could enter into any of your other markets.

Ultimately there really isn't a lot these companies do that's special. The most we survived because they're the ones who when the market was developing survived via survivorship bias. When you're talking infrastructure including internet infrastructure you are generally going to end up with some form of Monopoly forming. At least if you're not extremely careful to enforce competition. And I don't think there's a country on planet Earth that does that

Even with antifreeze, attempts to thaw bodies prepared that way have resulted in massive widespread organ cracking.

A login cookie doesn't need consent, but it does need explicit information to the user. Yes a popup is required for any session tracking cookies. What isn't required is an opt-out mechanism.

No one is being tricked here. The banners are explicit in their intent and outcome (and actually dark pattern banners are illegal). The reason the banners exist is because tracking companies don't stop tracking just because they were told they need to ask for consent. They just ask knowing users will mash any button on the screen to make the popup disappear.

A completely voluntary scheme not backed by any regulation in any country is ignored? This is my shocked face. I'm shocked I tell you, I may look like I'm questioning your intelligence but trust me I'm as shocked as you are about this revelation.

Hint: A law being passed won't have the same outcome as someone saying "hey I have an idea, how about I send some metadata in the http request header and you can decide what to do with it".

Managing cookies on a domain level is wildly inaccurate and messy compared to managing cookies by classification of how they impact you.

Bugs that affect a small number of users are a great euphemism for "oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck we're about to get fined... but it's okay I'm sure Americans will just say it's unfair that we break EU laws and that the EU is in the wrong".

I'm glad you discovered the problem with your approach. The domain tells you nothing about the functionality or the necessity of a cookie. It's a dead end way to manage the entire situation that succeeds in only breaking internet functionality.

Probably because it's factually incorrect and precisely no EU rules apply outside of the EU or to companies which don't do business in the EU.

False. Precisely none of the EU regulations apply outside the EU. If you want to do business in the EU, follow their rules, if you don't want to then doing. You're more than welcome to ignore that massive market.

Just don't be a French company like Amazon S.a.r.l, or an Irish company like Apple Operations Europe Ltd, or Apple International Sales Ltd, or a German company like Microsoft Deutschland GmbH. You're free to not be a multinational and then you don't need to comply with any EU rules (which again, apply exclusively in the EU to EU residents).

Thanks for telling us you have no clue what you're talking about. The GDPR has nothing, ZERO to do with cookie popups, and cookies are not mentioned anywhere in the nearly 100 pages of GDPR legislation.

Cookie popups are related to the ePrivacy Directive which was passed in 2002 and predate the GDPR by a decade and a half. Europe had cookie popups long before anyone even proposed the GDPR.

False. The advertising companies don't deliberately make it annoying. They just make it because they are forced to in order to continue to do what they do. It's minimal law compliance as written. Nothing more. The law was ill thought out, with good intention but a bad implementation.

False again. You need to inform on the use of first-party cookies. You don't need their consent, but you need to inform. Plenty of websites implement this as a cookie banner with a single button to close.

Basic session tracking applies. If your website has any kind of log-in functionality what so ever it doesn't fall in this category. The internet isn't static anymore, virtually no websites fall into this category.

Zero. The definition for UPF has nothing to do with it going through "process". It has to do with what ingredients are used in it.

For example, you mash a tomato, add some sugar, a pinch of salt, and some herbs and you've got a nice good MPF (Minimally processed food).

If instead you mash a tomato, add some HFCS, a pinch of salt, a splash of E129 to make it a deeper red colour to help sales, some E260 acetic acid to help extend its shelf life, and E900 polydimethylsiloxane to prevent it from forming unsightly bubbles when tossed in the pan, and some herbs then you have yourself a nice good UPF.

Why are you sure? It's actually none of the above. The definition for UPF exists, and there's nothing condescending about it, e.g. the Nova scale. For example cane sugar and HFCS have the same caloric content, (actually the same for all your guessed examples), yet one is classed as a purely natural ingredient and the other as a UPF.

You're so close. Keep going. Hint: look at what UPF is specifically in relation to what is *in* it.