There was absolutely nothing in that article about Roblox usage. It talked about browsing websites.

You mentioned Tesla only, and you talked about "if" everyone had their thumb on the scale, rather than the fact that they do. And you didn't explain why Chinese OEMs should be obliged to enter the market unsubsidized while US OEMs have, by your own admission, received subsidies.

It’s crazy! Here in London, UK, there’s a massive jumble of cars, everything from a Citroen Ami (very rare) or Smart car (pretty common) through to superminis (ten-a-penny), saloons and a bunch of SUVs of varying sizes. But the largest we have is something like a Range Rover, and the smallest SUVs are things like my own car, a Mercedes EQA, which is only 4.4m long. Pickup trucks are super-rare.

Yes to all of that!

But instead we have a 100+ comments focused on bullshit about engine reliability which affects a small % of people, as opposed to the costs of poor fuel economy, which affect many more.

... except instead of shoes becoming the only profitable product to manufacture, it's chatbots. Nobody knows why, but when it's all over, the only survivors will be those who evolved into computer-illiterate deaf-mutes.

I don't know what the definition of "accountability" is in climate research, but a threefold error is terrible science, it should have been caught in peer review, and everyone involved owes the scientific world an apology.

"We're still right, it's a terrible problem," only shows clear bias towards demonstrating there is a terrible problem, and that's how they missed this. All of them, peer review, everything. It's a massive methodology screw up that can easily be accounted for in STATA or whatever they're using. It is a solved problem to identify statistical outliers and compensate for or eliminate them.

What's "terrible" is this is more fodder for climate deniers and people with general scientific trust issues.

The only appropriate answer is, "We all made an egregious mistake." Don't tell us you're right, because that tells us that you went into statistical analysis with a foregone conclusion. Even if it's the correct conclusion, and it is, it reflects badly on the entire scientific community if you fuck up the evidence. Worse, some will assume you fucked with the evidence.

Mea culpa and STFU. Let the adults cover your butts and your reputations.

Indeed. And the issue was detected by looking at the data, finding fault with it and that is perfectly fine. Now, if the MAGAs and other denier-idiot assholes were right, the correction would never have happened. But it did. And that means things work and deliver good results. The process is just a bit more complex and takes a bit longer than their tiny brains can handle.

You clearly have not the slightest idea what the problem actually is. Well done, you are an idiot.

Well, if that is your take-away here, you clearly are a dangerous moron and asshole.

And no, there are NOT the same people. You are just lumping idiots in the press and in politics together with actual scientists because you have no idea how things actually work.

Nice denier nonsense you have there. The problem, which you are clearly not smart enough to understand is that this basically a permanent reduction and it is one that will be getting worse. You seem to think that at the end of the century, there is one point, where there will be some reduction. That is not the case. The reality is that each year will see an increasing reduction and that will last for a very long time. The problem is that very soon this will overtake total growth and then we will have negative growth each year.

Not a surprise that somebody like you does not get what is essentially a simple school-level "interest over multiple years" calculation.

Science is not broken, peer review is. And no, Science is not religion. It is the very opposite of it. A Science-denier like you will never understand that though, you are simply not smart enough.

I see you have never been part of this system. Your claims are pure hallucinations. There is no "enforcing" of any "consensus". Peer review checks, if done right, whether arguments hold up, data is plausible, etc.

The problem with peer review is that it is entirely unpaid while actually getting the publication can be very expensive, and many do it badly, just so they can claim they are doing it. I still regularly get contacted by journals wit requests to review one paper or another based on my publishing history. If it is open access and I am qualified, I will consider it. If not, I universally reject there requests now.

Not really. Science works on facts and evidences and sometimes there are errors and mistakes that then get corrected at a later time.

The Deniers work on stupidity. There is no fixing that and they do not need ammunition. They will just make stuff up.

Agreed; but it is possible to make a Metro-sized car that is safe by modern standards and still gets 40+mpg. The Smart ForTwo and the Scion IQ are two examples.

The demand is all coming from AI data centres. We had data centres being built for years without this massive spike in demand.