That's unusually bad, even for a year ago, but FSD has improved enormously since then. There were some huge updates around ~August that made it go from "Workable, but you have to watch it like a hawk" to "Really quite good, though still needs light supervision". I use FSD all the time and almost never have to intervene. It even passes the wife test now, meaning she uses it nearly all of the time, too, and I'd have said that would never happen.

OTOH, I used Waymo all last week for commuting around the bay area, and it was nearly flawless. There was one time it seemed to get confused because there was an emergency and there were sirens coming from multiple directions but none of the emergency vehicles could be seen. Apparently Waymo uses external microphones to listen for sirens. Anyway, it kind of stopped partway through a left turn through an intersection. It wasn't dangerous; all the human drivers were also slowing/stopping while trying to figure out where the emergency vehicles were, but it would have been better to continue through the intersection, then pull over. After about five seconds of hesitation, the Waymo did exactly that, but I'd have done it without the hesitation.

Neither does an EV. After 8 years an EV's battery pack will have degraded a little; perhaps it'll only have 85-90% of the range that it had when new (the 8-year warranty generally guarantees 80%). But the degradation curve is actually front-loaded; you lose the largest amount of range in the first year, less in the second, and so on. By the time it's 20 years old it will probably only have 75% of the range it had new. At 30 years, 70%, and so on.

Barring some manufacturing problem or catastrophic event, an EV battery should continue functioning long after an ICEV will need an engine replacement. The ICEV will maintain roughly its original range until it fails while the EV will lose a little range, but the EV will last longer.

As a driver of an EV, I disagree. I'd appreciate it if the PHEV (and EV!) drivers moved their vehicles when they are full, but as long as they're actively charging I don't see a problem with it. I suppose if the chargers are oversubscribed I'd appreciate PHEV drivers leaving them for the EVs, but that just means more chargers should be installed.

Hotels should just make them free, but room key-activated, so only guests can use them. And, of course, they need to install enough that they aren't oversubscribed.

If you're doing a road trip in an EV, being able to charge overnight while you're sleeping (just like at home) is marvelous. When I'm road-tripping I try to stay only at hotels with free chargers. There are actually plenty of them, at least in the US, so I succeed in staying at a place with a charger about 90% of the time.

Being able to charge overnight and start the day with a 100% charge means that I generally don't have to charge except during lunch and dinner, which means I can drive several hundred miles per day but spend zero time waiting for charging. I just have to make sure I stay at a hotel with a level 2 charger and eat lunch and dinner at places near superchargers. Not starting the day at 100% changes the dynamics significantly, requiring two quick supercharger stops for partial charges in the morning (if you're trying to minimize time spent charging, you only charge to about 60%, which takes about 20 minutes, vs an hour to get to 100%).

I'm amazed that 16% of respondents feel in control. I'm just curious if they know something I don't about countermeasures to take; or if it's a matter of what they don't know.

The prior non-core items were optional and relatively clearly marked; but when they decided to go 'AI' that went out the window. Being able to grub around in about:config for anything that has 'ml' in it does, depressingly, put them ahead of the options of some of the competition; but it shipped on by default and without controls in the normal-user UI. Seems like 'AI' really does something to the decision making even of people who should know better.

Kodak's demise is a little overstated just because they have been reorganized several times; and 'Kodak' is sort of the dump entity. There are still a variety of applications for being competent at thin film chemistry, including semiconductor fabrication, just not so much making 35mm film. So Eastman Chemical got most of that. And some of their medical and otherwise higher-end optics and imaging stuff also got spun off, with the business of not terribly optically interesting cameras under heavy threat from apathy and cellphones left at Kodak proper.

They certainly didn't do desperately well; or they'd probably be somewhere more along the lines of Sony in terms of 'who builds CCDs worth disclosing the provider of?'; but the reorgs appear to have been aimed at separating the more viable business units from the liabilities. Probably so the latter could be tied to the pension plan.

I wish I could say I'm surprised.

However, this has been a consistent pattern that goes back to the 1930s and I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you corected that to the 1830s. Companies know that you make the most money by selling to both sides.

... How working in an office was the standard for centuries but somehow in the last 5 years has become a necessity.

The entire place is a swampy echo chamber.

Paid for by taxpayer dollars. Oh, and the public funding drives.
(which of these is "the most important" depends on who's begging in front of whom) ...oh and $2.5 million per state? So a flat $125 mill annually?

"The commission's decision to drop PBS membership is a blow to Arkansans who will lose free, over the air access to quality PBS programming they know and love,"
IT'S CLEARLY NOT FREE.

This will be great for Haiku, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD installs, there's not the remotest possibility there'll be binaries for these. Not because the software couldn't be ported, but because the sorts of people politicians hire to write software would never be able to figure out the installer.

US Solicitor General John Sauer disagrees.

In the oral arguments for Trump v Slaughter, on Monday, Sauer said this isn't true when Justice Kagan pushed him on it. She said that the Founders clearly intended to have a separation of powers, to which he basically said "Yeah, but with the caveat that they created the 'unitary executive'", by which he seemed to mean that they intended the president to be able to do pretty much anything.

Kagan responded with a nuanced argument about how we have long allowed Congress to delegate limited legislative and judicial functions to the executive branch in the way we allow Congress to delegate the power to create and evaluate federal rules to executive-branch agencies, but that that strategy rests on a "deal" that both limits the scope of said rulemaking and evaluative functions and isolates them to the designated agency. She said that breaking that isolation by allowing the president detailed control over those functions abrogated and invalidated the deal, unconstitutionally concentrating power in ways that were clearly not intended by the Founders.

Sauer disagreed. I'll stop describing the discussion here and invite you to listen to it. The discussion is both fascinating and very accessible, and the linked clip is less than seven minutes long.

The court seems poised to take Sauer's view, which I think is clearly wrong. If they do, it's going to come back and bite conservatives hard when we get an active liberal president, as we inevitably will someday if the Trump administration fails to end democracy in the US.

What's very sad is that we already went through all of this and learned these lessons 150 years ago. After 100 years of experience with a thoroughly-politicized executive branch, we passed the Pentleton Civil Service Reform act in 1883 specifically to insulate most civil servants from presidential interference. Various other laws have subsequently been passed to create protections for federal workers and to establish high-level positions that are explicitly protected from the president. SCOTUS seems bent on overturning all of that and returning us to the pre-Pendleton era.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and it's looking we're gonna repeat a lot of bad history before we re-learn those 19th-century lessons.

Or, more concisely: Countries should aim to be poor.