People expect to be paid for commute time too, at least in the sense that they will want more money if the commute is longer. Work from home made just coming to the office at all something which people want more money for.

$6 billion could do a lot to end hunger in many parts of the world. Instead, Musk bought Twitter and turned it into a hellsite, and told people to have more kids.

Knowing them, they hired some AI wiz kids who wanted to move fast and break things. Meanwhile the poor engineers who are slowly making really important and valuable improvements to the core browser aren't getting any help. Maybe some vibe coded Javascript engine updates are next on the list.

You can't trust these billionaires. Musk said if someone explained how he could end hunger for $6 billion, he would do it. He was presented with a credible plan by the United Nations' World Food Program, and quietly forgot about it his promise.

This feels self serving. What are the chances that if they discover some miracle cure for cancer, they charge top dollar for it?

Clearly some of their customers want EV trucks. But why don't more of them want them?

Could it be because Trump doesn't like EVs, and because Republicans have done everything they can to stifle installation of the infrastructure that makes owning an EV convenient?

It seems to be the way they went about it, as much as anything. The volunteers would probably have accepted first drafts created by AI, or suggestions for changes, but Mozilla just overwrote their work, bypassing them entirely.

It's about half the size of the larger cargo ships too, but still quite competitive. I'm sure they can scale up, Running costs should be lower due to less fuel use (it still uses some around ports).

Speed isn't such a big deal for this sort of thing, that can be worked into the logistics. Maybe they will have drone ships eventually anyway, so it's not even costing any more in wages.

These types of store are actually common in parts of Europe, and there are some in the UK. People end up squeezing through the checkout queue to get out.

The technical term is a lexical unit. Sometimes two words together mean some specific thing, most often with nouns. Sometimes the space disappears over time, sometimes it gets hyphenated, sometimes it just stays as two words that refer to some specific thing.

Basically, if it would appear in the dictionary, it can be word of the year, even if it's two or three words.

China's population is starting to fall, as they have the same problem every developed nation does with low birth rates.

That's based on an assumption that as their electricity consumption increases, so will their per-capita emissions. They won't, they are falling and will continue to do so. The momentum of the reduction is higher than that of the increase in output.

China's per-capita emissions have peaked, as have their overall emissions. Their population will continue to make gains in quality of life and move to urban living, but their emissions (both metrics) won't ever exceed the peak seen earlier this year.

Which country is unwilling to do anything about climate change in this discussion?

I mean from a point of view of addressing the problem and figuring out who needs to do better.

Comparing US and China on a total emissions basis makes no sense, unless you are saying that China's brutal one child policy wasn't brutal enough.

Many Chinese citizens enjoy a very modern lifestyle, similar to Western ones. Their emissions have peaked too, and as the rest of them move away from the agrarian lifestyle they are not going to reach the peak level, let alone US ones.